Oral Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

National Insurance Numbers (Other EU Nationals)

Henry Smith: When HM Revenue and Customs plans to publish data on the number of active national insurance numbers used by people from other EU countries.

David Gauke: The Government are committed to providing data on active national insurance numbers used by people from other EU countries. HMRC is currently compiling that information and is working closely with the Office for National Statistics, which is reconciling the four main sources of international migration data. The data on active national insurance numbers will be published as part of, or alongside, the ONS’s publication. It is up to that independent statistics authority to decide when it is ready to make public the information.

Henry Smith: I have been asking HMRC for the figures since January. The British people have a right to know such facts, particularly in the context of the UK’s EU referendum debate. Will we know before 23 June how many foreign nationals from other EU countries have national insurance numbers?

David Gauke: It does take some time for HMRC to combine and match multiple datasets and hundreds of millions of lines of its own and the Department for Work and Pensions’ data. The intention is to publish the information alongside the ONS analysis. I note that according to its website the ONS plans to publish in May a note on migration incorporating the latest available migration data, and helping to explain further why the two datasets show different trends.

Chris Leslie: What about the 3.3 million people—one in 10 of the existing workforce—who pay their national insurance and tax and whose jobs are linked to UK exports to the EU? Does the Minister agree that leave campaigners should not just cross their fingers and dismiss reality and that Members on both sides of the House have a duty to spell out the fact that leaving the EU would put real jobs at real risk?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Treasury analysis published yesterday that shows the various models and the consequences were we to leave the EU, including a permanent reduction in our GDP compared with what it otherwise would be and significant damage to productivity growth. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point.

Steven Baker: Do the Government welcome the opportunity to bring forward actual data without the need to project forward 14 years using techniques that have proved to be inaccurate every six months?

David Gauke: As I said, HMRC has gone through the data and will provide them to the ONS. It is for the ONS to decide the timing, but I have drawn the House’s attention to what it has said.
Returning to the Treasury analysis, it compares one scenario with other scenarios, and all three possible scenarios for leaving the EU would leave this country poorer than we otherwise would be.

Helen Goodman: The impact of EU membership on jobs is obviously significant. Will the Minister pass on my congratulations to the officials who did the useful analysis that was published yesterday? A regional breakdown on page 65 of the document suggests that 100,000 jobs in the north-east are dependent on EU exports. I had thought that the figure would be 140,000, so will he ask the officials to look at it again with a view to revising it up?

David Gauke: I will certainly take that representation on board. Of course, the north-east of England has the very large Nissan plant, which provides a significant number of jobs. The argument in the Treasury analysis is that we benefit from an open economy. If we leave the single market, we become a less open economy, which will have a cost to the British people in their living standards.

Philip Hollobone: The disgracefully dodgy document published by the Treasury yesterday is, frankly, worthy of the children’s programme “Jackanory”. The immigration figures suggest that there will be 3 million more immigrants in this country by 2030, placing my hon. Friend in clear breach of the Conservative manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands a year. What is his response to that accusation?

David Gauke: The numbers are based on the ONS projection that was used at the last Budget. No account is taken of the achievements of the renegotiation secured by the Prime Minister. On the Treasury analysis, a large number of independent economic commentators have argued that it is broadly in the right direction. My hon. Friends who advocate that we should leave the EU should come forward with their own analysis, setting out exactly what model they would follow and what the economic consequences would be.

First-time Homebuyers

Victoria Prentis: What steps he is taking to help first-time homebuyers.

George Osborne: We are both building more houses and helping young families afford those homes. Some 400,000 new homes are being built over the years of this Parliament, half of them starter homes for first-time buyers. In the Budget I also launched the new lifetime ISA, so that young people no longer have to choose between saving for a home and saving for their retirement—we are going to help them do both. All this from a Conservative Government who support people’s aspirations to buy their own home and, in time, pass that on to their children.

Victoria Prentis: Following the promise of an extra £19 million from the Treasury to help make Bicester garden town a reality, will the Chancellor update the House on the other means he is using to encourage house building, particularly for first-time buyers?

George Osborne: I am delighted that we can support the community that my hon. Friend so ably represents in Parliament, and provide money for the upgrade of the M40 junction and a new secondary school to go with the new homes being built in Bicester. Of course that comes as part of a suite: we are investing in new starter homes and in shared equity products for people; our help to buy ISA has been used by hundreds of thousands of people; and the new lifetime ISA will also help young people. Those are all things we are doing to make sure this a home-owning democracy.

Alison McGovern: But there is a problem, because the Office for Budget Responsibility says that lifetime ISAs will increase house prices, as they will increase demand and there is relatively restricted supply. Is the Chancellor confident that his measures to increase the supply of housing will mean that the OBR is able to revise that analysis—yes or no?

George Osborne: I agree that it is vital that we not only help people afford homes, particularly young first-time buyers, but build more homes. That is the plan we set out in the spending review; a big priority of the capital budget was the additional billions we will be spending on building homes—much more than was spent under the last Labour Government.

Christopher Chope: How is having net migration of an additional 3 million people going to help first-time buyers find a home?

George Osborne: As I say, we have the products to help first-time buyers in this country afford housing, but I make this observation on migration: you cannot have access to the single market without accepting the free movement of people. That is an absolutely clear principle, which has been made very starkly clear to this country by Germany and France, and is internationally accepted. If we want access to the single market, we have to accept the free movement of people.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Chancellor confirm that the number of under-35s who own their own home has fallen by a fifth since he came to office?

George Osborne: Under this Government the number of first-time buyers is up by 57%, whereas under the last Labour Government in the last Parliament it fell by 50%.

Seema Malhotra: Perhaps the Chancellor will be hearing for the first time that the number of under-35s heading homes they own has fallen by more than 280,000 since 2010. Indeed, the number of affordable homes available to buy has halved since then. Private rental prices rose by 2.6% in the year to February, with incomes failing to keep pace. In September, the Government spoke of a “national crusade” to get 1 million homes built by 2020, but in November that figure was more than halved. Shelter says the Government’s starter homes scheme takes away homes that people on typical wages could afford. Is it not true that home ownership is in freefall because of the housing crisis, with young people who are aspiring to own being the hardest hit?

George Osborne: I have already said that the number of first-time buyers is actually up by 57% under this Government, and I would make this observation: we cannot have a strong and successful housing market, and people getting on the housing ladder, unless we have a strong and successful economy. If we followed the prescription of the Labour Front-Bench team, of nationalising half the economy and imposing punitive tax rates, there would not be anyone able to afford any home in this country.

Chloe Smith: Is it not the case that this Government’s lifetime ISA could help to produce, at maximum rates, a home deposit of up to £50,000, and, even at lower rates of savings, a deposit enough for a terraced home in Norwich costing £120,000?

George Osborne: The lifetime ISA will be a very popular and successful new saving product precisely because it does not require people to choose between saving for a home or saving for their retirement; they can do both. We are also now looking at ways for people to draw on their savings during their lifetime for particular emergencies, or for when they need bits of money, like they do in the United States with the 401(k) scheme. The lifetime ISA will be a radically new savings product, and it will do what we need to do in this country, which is build a savings culture.

Productivity

Kirsty Blackman: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of productivity; and what steps he is taking to increase productivity.

Greg Hands: Productivity performance in the UK has been weak since the financial crisis, as it has been in all developed countries. The Government published their productivity plan “Fixing the foundations” last year. At the Budget, we announced additional reductions in corporation tax and business rates to incentivise investment, and gave the green light to infrastructure projects such as Crossrail 2 and High Speed 3.

Kirsty Blackman: The Scottish National party has continually argued that the UK economy is in dire need of investment to stimulate productivity. Despite the productivity plan, the Chancellor seems determined to persevere with policies that stifle productivity. What policies have the UK Government enacted that will encourage an increase in productivity?

Greg Hands: The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is an issue in relation to productivity in this country, but there is an issue across all major developed economies. Over the past year, productivity growth in this country was about 1%, which compares with 0.9% across the G7. On specific measures, we have established the National Infrastructure Commission, protected science funding at the Budget and spending review, introduced the Housing and Planning Bill, announced the apprenticeship levy, which is coming in, and announced a £100 billion infrastructure programme over the course of this Parliament.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that, by being a member of the European Union, this country benefits hugely from a cross-fertilisation of good ideas across the European Union, the supply chain, and foreign direct investment at 50%? Our trade, too, also benefits from our being in the single market—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. No! The hon. Gentleman is very, very wide of the question. I have great respect for him. He has put his thoughts on the record, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper, to which the Chief Secretary will not therefore reply.

Barry Sheerman: May I press the Minister? He cannot just hide behind what he claims to be happening in all advanced economies. We are performing worse than most, particularly France. Is the reason for that not to do with the lack of skills of our workers and the lack of good education in our country? Will the Chancellor’s silly policy on forced academisation help or hinder?

Greg Hands: We recognise that there is an issue with productivity, which is why we published the productivity plan, but in terms of growth, the UK was the fastest-growing major economy in 2014. Last year, we were in second place; this year we are also projected to be in second place, growing at a healthy rate. Therefore, with regard to growth, this country is doing very well indeed.

Damian Collins: Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that £540 billion invested by foreign businesses in the UK over the past decade is vital to our future productivity, and that, if we left the EU, the uncertainty of our trading relationship with Europe and the world would put that investment in jeopardy?

Greg Hands: I agree with my hon. Friend. Leaving the EU would damage UK productivity. It has the potential to deny access, or to make access more difficult, to markets and investment. It is worth noting that the UK, with 28%, is the No.1 EU destination for foreign direct investment, and a large part of that is to do with our status as an EU member.

Rob Marris: It was five years in office before we saw a productivity plan, and what happened last year? Productivity in the UK was 18 percentage points below the average for the rest of the G7. One sector that needs help is the UK steel industry. It needs more capital investment to be more competitive. How much money will the Government invest in steel in the next 12 months to improve productivity and save British jobs?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman mentions the figure of 18 percentage points, and I refer him to an earlier answer in which I said productivity has been a long-standing issue in the UK. In fact, the figure was 17 percentage points back in the 1990s. As he well knows, the action we have taken on steel includes securing state aid to compensate for energy costs, securing flexibility over EU emissions regulations, ensuring that the procurement rules can also allow social and economic factors to be taken into account, and continuing to tackle unfair trading practices. The Government have been very active on steel, and that has not ended today.

Tax Havens

Rushanara Ali: What steps he has taken to reduce the number of tax havens worldwide.

Neil Gray: What his policy is on requiring multinational companies to disclose to the public the profits they hold in tax havens (a) in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies and (b) elsewhere.

Jonathan Reynolds: What steps he has taken to reduce the number of tax havens worldwide.

Tommy Sheppard: What his policy is on requiring multinational companies to disclose to the public the profits they hold in tax havens (a) in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies and (b) elsewhere.

George Osborne: The Government are leading the world in the fight against tax evasion and it was Britain that first demanded that multinationals publish, country by country, where they pay tax. Thanks to our leadership, that is now being taken up at a European level. Multinationals selling into Europe will be required to report the tax they pay, including in ultra-low tax locations. Britain has also got its leading allies to agree to share information on the beneficial ownership of companies. We are now seeking international leadership on a blacklist of tax havens, with punitive action against the jurisdictions on that blacklist. We want the rest of the world to follow our example; where we lead, others should follow.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the Chancellor for that answer, but Conservative MEPs have voted six times on instruction from the Treasury to block EU-wide measures against tax avoidance. What action will the Chancellor take to get all Crown dependencies to establish a public register of beneficial ownership?

George Osborne: At a European level, we are now getting agreement to ensure that multinationals should disclose where they pay tax around the world, including in ultra-low tax jurisdictions. We have just agreed with our leading European allies, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, that we will exchange information on beneficial ownership. In terms of public registries, we are literally one of the very few countries in the world—one of only two or three countries in the entire world—to have committed to a public register, but we want all jurisdictions, not just our overseas territories but all the other advanced economies of the world, to follow our lead.

Neil Gray: Last month, I tabled a series of written questions about the tax gap resulting from individuals and businesses using overseas territories and Crown dependencies. All seven questions were grouped into one answer from the Financial Secretary, which basically said, “We have no idea.” Now that the Government have been shamed by the Panama papers into hasty action, will they finally rectify the extraordinary situation whereby the Government have no idea how much is lost to the Treasury in this way each year? Would a public register of beneficial ownership not help in this regard?

George Osborne: We have published more detail on the tax gap than the previous Government and we have shown that it is at one of its lowest levels in our history. This Government have collected £26 billion more than was being collected by a Labour Government in extra compliance.

Jonathan Reynolds: Tax havens are merely a symptom of a much wider problem, which is that too often the wrong values are at the heart of our financial system. There is too much greed. There is insufficient reciprocity. There is still too great a disconnection between the real economy and the needs of our society. Eight years on from the financial crisis, what is the Chancellor’s genuine assessment of how much has changed for the better?

George Osborne: That is a perfectly reasonable question, and it was well put. A huge amount has changed. There is much tougher regulation of the financial system, and we have better regulators. Banks are more on the case of bad action in their areas, but it is true that more needs to be done to create a proper culture in the banking system in which they treat customers fairly and seek to do the right thing. That is happening, and the banks that do it will get rewards from customers in the marketplace. Like other professions, the industry is seeking to improve its standards of conduct.

Tommy Sheppard: The Chancellor will be aware that the reporting requirements for private companies are a lot less stringent than those for publicly listed companies. Although the register of beneficial ownership is an improvement, we need to know not just who owns a particular company but how much tax they are avoiding. If a company gets away with not publishing income, turnover or profit, that will not do. May I ask him what steps he will take with our overseas territories to ensure that this is rectified?

George Osborne: Of course, all companies have to pay their correct taxes, and we have taken action to ensure that. Country-by-country reporting is designed precisely so that people can see in particular where multinational businesses pay tax.

Andrew Tyrie: The recent information-sharing agreement that the Chancellor has just referred to could turn out to be a very significant step in the fight against tax evasion, and I support it. The public are right to be upset when businesses or individuals do not pay their fair share of tax. Evasion needs to be rigorously pursued, but does the Chancellor agree that when that is caused by tax avoidance, it is the job of Government to simplify the tax code and close the loopholes exploited by the avoiders?

George Osborne: I broadly agree with my right hon. Friend. I welcome the welcome that he gives to the agreement that we have with four other European countries on the exchange of information on beneficial ownership. We hope that will set an example that not just the rest of Europe, but the rest of the world will follow.
On tax avoidance, of course it is the responsibility of the House of Commons and the Government to try to make sure that the tax code and tax law are simple and do what is intended, but we are in a constant race, as has always been the case, against highly paid accountancy firms and the like, who design very contrived systems to avoid tax and avoid the intention of Parliament. There has been a significant development in our jurisprudence whereby the Supreme Court now takes into account the intention of Parliament, as well as the letter of the law. I think that is right, because as I say, there is sometimes a bit of an arms race in relation to the tax code, and the wishes of Parliament should be taken into account by our courts.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the agreement that he has  just reached. Is it not the case that HMRC employs 26,000 investigators who work to stop tax evasion and avoidance, and that they have brought in more than £2 billion over the past six years from offshore tax avoidance? Does he agree that we should congratulate HMRC on doing the good job that its investigators are doing, and thank them for their work, and that anyone who criticises HMRC in that respect is just plain wrong?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the good work that HMRC does. It has never been popular to be a tax collector in any country at any point in history. HMRC is doing a good job in that respect. We are putting more resources in so that it can target particularly wealthy individuals who are evading tax. We now have 26,000 people employed by the Government to ensure that people comply with our tax laws.

Mark Spencer: I congratulate the Chancellor on the work that he has done to close loopholes—more than any previous Chancellor—but does he recognise that a low-tax economy will attract wealthy people from all over the world to invest in our economy, create jobs and pay more tax, so the Exchequer draws more tax in the end?

George Osborne: I entirely agree. We as Conservatives believe that there should be low taxes, but taxes that are paid. That is the right approach. That is why we have reduced corporation tax, and why we are reducing income tax by raising the tax-free personal allowance. When we cut the top rate of tax, we collected more income for the Exchequer.

Luke Hall: With the tax gap now at its lowest level on record, does the Chancellor agree that this Government have done much more to ensure that the taxes that are owed are paid than the Labour Government ever achieved?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend, who is an excellent Member of Parliament in the west of England, is right. We get lots of suggestions from the Labour party about what we should do about tax. Labour was in office for 13 years and had Treasury Ministers answering questions for 13 years. Not a single one of these things happened when they were in charge, and no one believes that if Labour were ever back in charge, it would be tough and take action.

John Martin McDonnell: Shall we bring the discussion back to today? In the Panama revelations about the behaviour of offshore companies, the Chancellor could not fail to notice the key role played in many of those deals by UK-headquartered banks and UK-based intermediaries. For example, HSBC and its affiliates created more offshore companies through Mossack Fonseca than any other bank. In view of the significant role played by UK banks, will the Chancellor support the new clause tabled by Labour to today’s Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, requiring British financial institutions to record the true owners of any companies or trusts that they work for? Will he also, like me, welcome the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for a register of the beneficial owners of property in the UK to tackle money laundering, often linked to tax evasion?

George Osborne: First, we are introducing a register of the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts that need to pay tax, and of course banks must therefore comply with it. Secondly, we are introducing—this will be in the Queen’s Speech—a new criminal offence of facilitating tax evasion, which will apply to the corporate sector in Britain as well. That is in addition to the criminal offence we have introduced that says ignorance is no defence when someone comes before the courts if it is found that they have been evading taxes.

Stewart Hosie: Tax havens lead to a loss of revenue here as individuals can hide through opaque structures and businesses simply do not pay UK tax in respect of where economic activity takes place. Given the revelations from Mossack Fonseca, has the Treasury carried out a new assessment to calculate the scale and size of the revenue lost to the UK?

George Osborne: There are already a large number of ongoing investigations in respect of Panama, which we hope will lead to prosecutions, and the Government already had data on Mossack Fonseca. If there is additional information available in the Panama papers—despite our requests, the media organisations have not yet handed all that information over to us—we will act on it.

Stewart Hosie: Can I ask the Chancellor to be more assertive and to go much further? Mossack Fonseca is the fourth biggest such firm in Panama, and I presume that there are dozens, scores or hundreds of smaller ones, and there will be many, many more in other  countries. The scale and scope of this are likely to be astronomical. He and the Government need to go much further. We need to have a much clearer understanding of the scale of this. I ask him to make all the representations he can to the Panamanian authorities and other jurisdictions where similar activities are taking place.

George Osborne: To be frank, representations are not going to be enough with some of these jurisdictions. That is why we want international agreement to a blacklist that jurisdictions will go on if they do not comply with the norms that we are establishing on transparency, exchange of information and the like. Once they are on the blacklist, they are subject to penalties and punitive action—sanctions, if you like—so that it is clear that they cannot carry on doing business in the way they have been. If the whole world comes around on that—there was welcome support for this British-promoted concept at the G20 last week in Washington—so that we get that blacklist and that punitive action, I think that we will help to solve this problem.

John Bercow: We have to move on—far too slow.

Corporation Tax

David Hanson: What assessment he has made of which groups within the UK population will benefit from planned changes to corporation tax.

Justin Madders: What assessment he has made of which groups within the UK population will benefit from planned changes to corporation tax.

David Gauke: Corporation tax cuts have been a central part of the Government’s economic strategy, and that strategy is working; there are 2.3 million more people in employment since 2010. The further cuts in the main rate announced at the Budget, which will bring it down to 17% by 2020, will benefit over 1 million companies, large and small. Lower corporation tax rates will support UK companies to invest and grow, creating jobs as they do so.

David Hanson: One of the justifications for the corporation tax cut was that businesses would pass it on to workers through the increase in the living wage. Evidence is now emerging that some companies intend to pocket the tax cut and squeeze conditions for their employees, so what steps do the Government intend to take to monitor that?

David Gauke: The cuts in corporation tax will result in greater investment in this country, and greater investment drives productivity growth, and productivity growth is what will drive higher living standards. Let us remember that it is this Government who have brought in the national living wage, and we have seen very large numbers of people see increases in their wages and salaries.

Justin Madders: Owing to changes in personal independence payments, people with disabilities are set to lose £1 billion at the same time as corporation tax is  being cut, so can the Minister honestly say that he is comfortable with prioritising big business over disabled people?

David Gauke: We are providing more support to help the disabled get into employment, but let me just make this point to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House: the way this country is going to be prosperous and able to afford good public services and support for the most vulnerable is by having a strong, growing economy, and competitive business taxes help us to have that strong, growing economy.

David Rutley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Federation of Small Businesses has said that the decision to further lower corporation tax to 17% is an important statement of intent and will provide a boost for the affected firms? Does he agree that that will help to further underpin the enterprising economy that we need?

David Gauke: I completely agree, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the comments of the FSB. The reductions in corporation tax will help small businesses and large businesses, and they will help to drive a competitive and dynamic economy.

James Berry: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to trot out phrases such as “tax cuts for companies”, but it is vital that we have low corporation tax to attract investment into this country and to ensure that we have jobs here? The Chancellor has repeatedly encouraged companies to pass on tax cuts to workers, which is where they should go.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that. All taxes are ultimately paid by people, but business taxes that discourage investment discourage the economic growth we need in this country, and that growth is what this Government are determined to deliver.

General Anti-tax Avoidance Principle

Grahame Morris: For what reasons the Government have not introduced a general anti-tax avoidance principle.

David Gauke: A general anti-avoidance rule was considered by an independent study group led by Graham Aaronson QC in 2011. The group recommended an anti-abuse rule for the UK because it felt strongly that it would strengthen and complement existing tools available to HMRC. The Government accepted the recommendation and introduced a general anti-abuse rule in 2013, striking the right balance between protection against avoidance and certainty for taxpayers.

Grahame Morris: One way to put an end to aggressive tax avoidance is a general principle—a principle, not a rule. I am sure the Minister understands there is a difference: people can find a way around a rule, but it is not easy to do that with a principle. Will the Government therefore back their public statements about tackling aggressive tax avoidance and legislate for a general principle of tax avoidance?

David Gauke: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Labour Government looked at this issue and declined either a general anti-abuse rule or a general anti-abuse principle because of fears of uncertainty. We believe we have got the balance right. However, alongside the introduction of the anti-abuse rule, we have brought in measures to deal with accelerated payments and promoters, we closed 40 tax loopholes in the last Parliament and we have announced 25 closures in this Parliament already. It is worth pointing out that avoidance is coming down.

Support for the Economy (South-west)

Scott Mann: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures to support the economy in the south-west announced in the Budget 2016.

Greg Hands: We announced at the Budget an extensive package for the south-west covering both rail and road: a new marine hub enterprise zone in Cornwall, a £4.5 million boost for ultra-fast broadband across the region and, to top it off, a £900 million devolution deal with the west of England. The south-west will also benefit from the income tax cuts and business rate reductions announced in the Budget.

Scott Mann: One item that went largely unnoticed in the Budget was the £19 million for community land trusts in the south-west to mitigate the impact of second home ownership. How will that money be allocated? Will my right hon. Friend work with me and fellow Conservative MPs in the south-west to ensure that that money is put aside to help people to purchase plots and to help working people to get on?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is right that we will be releasing £19 million for community-led housing in the south-west. I look forward to discussing with him how we might best approach that issue. We are also introducing a new right to build and reforms to planning, which will boost the custom-build sector in Cornwall and beyond.

Rebecca Pow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government underfunded infrastructure projects in the south-west, resulting in lower productivity in the region and hence less of a contribution to the national economy than we should have had, but that it is this Government who are turning that around with their huge £7.6 billion commitment to infrastructure and connectivity?

John Bercow: Just as long as the Chief Secretary focuses on what this Government are doing. He does not need to burble on about the past.

Greg Hands: I welcome the opportunity to say something about what this Government are doing on infrastructure in the south-west. We have 35 projects in the infrastructure pipeline in the south-west with a value of £23.2 billion. At the Budget alone, we announced improvements to Exeter St David’s station, at Weston-super-Mare and at Cheltenham Spa station. I have already mentioned community housing. There is also a fund to provide more and better roads in the south-west.

Solar Power

Caroline Lucas: What fiscal steps he is taking to support the development of solar power.

Damian Hinds: We are continuing our support for solar, keeping the small-scale feed-in tariff scheme open beyond January 2016, setting tariffs on a path to help transition the industry to a sustainable, subsidy-free future.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the Exchequer Secretary for that very short answer. Given that the EU’s VAT reform action plan will give Governments discretion in applying rates of VAT, including on solar power, will he confirm categorically to solar installers in my constituency that the UK has officially and permanently dropped the proposal to hike solar VAT to 20%?

Damian Hinds: The reduced rate of VAT remains  in place on all 11 of the categories of energy saving materials. Following the decision by the European Court, we have consulted interested parties on the issue and, given the complexities involved, we are still considering the responses.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that about 90% or more of the solar-powered energy available in Britain has been put in place under this Government? Does he also agree that, in order for intermittent renewable power to provide a steady baseload, the investment with which the Government are supporting battery technology is absolutely key?

Damian Hinds: My hon. and learned Friend is, of course, right on multiple counts. Solar has been a great British success story: more than 99% of the installed solar PV capacity has happened since May 2010. He is also correct to say that the development of battery technology here and elsewhere is incredibly important for the future.

Mary Creagh: I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will welcome the report published today by the Environmental Audit Committee, which finds that membership of the European Union has been overwhelmingly positive for the UK’s environment. Our Committee is also conducting an inquiry into the Treasury’s approach to sustainability and the environment. Will he encourage his colleague the Chancellor to come before the Committee to discuss the Treasury’s approach to solar power, offshore wind, waste and recycling policy?

Damian Hinds: I look forward to reading the hon. Lady’s report. The Treasury takes a balanced approach to making sure that we stay on target to meet our commitments. We are on target to meet our commitment of 15% of renewable energy by 2020, but we must do so in a cost-effective way, recognising that the subsidies to early stage technologies can only be paid for by taxpayers.

Nigel Huddleston: Will the Exchequer Secretary join me in congratulating the UK solar power industry on being one of the top 10 in  the world? It is larger than that in Australia and slightly smaller than that in Spain, despite having a rather less advantageous climate.

Damian Hinds: Indeed. Were it only the case that the sun would always shine. Under Labour, we had the highest dependency on fossil fuels in the G8 and the lowest contribution from renewable energy of any major EU country. As I said earlier, the deployment of solar power has been a great success story since 2010.

Angus MacNeil: One of the big things this Government could do to help solar and, indeed, all renewables is to remove the double charge on storage, whereby storage is charged when it takes on the power and charged again when it gets rid of the power and puts it back in the grid. Will the Treasury consider changing its approach and helping storage? It could do so with a stroke of a pen and it would make a huge difference. I urge the Treasury to stroke that pen and make sure that that change happens.

Damian Hinds: The tariffs are designed to make sure that there is a reasonable and appropriate return to investors. They have to be adjusted periodically when costs come down. Of course, one of the great parts of the success story of solar is the fact that costs have come down by about two thirds since 2010.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: According to the Solar Trade Association:
“Government will be spending just 1% of new expenditure under the Levy Control Framework supporting solar power…yet mainstream analysts expect solar power to dominate future energy supply.”
With that in mind, will the Chancellor promise to do much more to ensure that Britain becomes a market leader in the industry, or are we going to let China take the lead yet again?

Damian Hinds: Britain does have a leadership position in the industry, but we need a balance. We need a portfolio of energy sources and to recognise the importance of baseload power. That is why the development of new nuclear is also so important.

UK-Iran Financial Transactions

Maggie Throup: What steps he is taking to facilitate transactions between UK and Iranian financial institutions.

Harriett Baldwin: The Government fully support expanding the UK’s trade relationship with Iran. The Treasury is actively liaising with UK banks and industry bodies, to understand concerns and help re-establish financial channels between the UK and Iran.

Maggie Throup: Despite the improving diplomatic relations between the British and Iranian Governments, UK businesses still face significant barriers to completing legitimate banking transactions for trade purposes. Will the Minister look at what more can be done to help to facilitate financial transactions between UK and Iranian banks, so that the UK economy can begin to benefit from this new market?

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that the situation with the payment channels between the UK and Iran is quite challenging, particularly because the US still has its primary sanctions in place. We have been speaking to banks at the highest levels. We have also been liaising with the US authorities to push for further clarity for UK banks. It is worth pointing out that some banks have a more extensive US business than others do, and that therefore it might be worth companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere considering switching to banks that have less exposure in the US.

Simon Burns: Given the opportunities for British businesses in Iran as a result of the relaxation of sanctions, could the Treasury have a word with our friends the Americans to make sure that they do not seek to use their banking regulations to prevent some of the commercial deals that may flow to British companies as a result of that relaxation of sanctions?

Harriett Baldwin: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight one of the key issues. I assure him that we are working at all levels in discussions with the US authorities to ensure that British companies selling to Iran are able to put that money into UK bank accounts.

Manufacturing Exports

Marie Rimmer: What recent fiscal steps his Department has taken to support manufacturing exports.

Harriett Baldwin: It is Export Week, and I can announce that UK Export Finance has provided more than £15 billion of support to exporters since 2010 and UK Trade & Investment has more than doubled the number of businesses that it helps to more than 54,000.

Marie Rimmer: UK industrial production and manufacturing output suffered sharp falls in February, and they remain well below 2008 levels. Meanwhile, the Office for National Statistics reported that house prices in London have reached an average of £524,000, which is 49% higher than their pre-recession peak and out of the reach of all but those who are on six-figure salaries or who have benefited from a trust fund inheritance. When will my constituents see the Britain held aloft by the march of the makers, and the economy rebalanced towards the north of England, as the Chancellor promised?

Harriett Baldwin: I encourage the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate to elaborate further on her question. I am sure that she and her constituents will welcome the fact that employment in the north-west is at the highest level on record; that more than 89,000 businesses in the north-west will not pay business rates; and that 360,000 people in the north-west will now benefit from the living wage.

Alan Mak: British exports to China have more than doubled since 2010, led by Havant-based manufacturers such as Colt and Lewmar. Will the Minister join me in congratulating those businesses,  and will she encourage others to follow their lead by supporting and maintaining the Government’s pro-export policies?

Harriett Baldwin: It is wonderful to hear during Export Week about Colt and Lewmar, and their fantastic work exporting overseas. It is a key priority of the Government to continue to encourage more firms to export. In fact, we have ambitious aims to have another 100,000 businesses exporting over the life of this Parliament.

Rachel Reeves: The current account deficit is at a post-war high of more than 5% of GDP, and 44% of our exports go to the European Union. It took Canada seven years to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union. Does the Minister agree that the last thing that exporters need, and the last thing that the one in 10 jobs that depend on our exports to the EU need, is the uncertainty that the referendum is bringing—and, indeed, that Brexit would bring—to them and to those jobs?

Harriett Baldwin: The last time I looked, I thought it was also Labour policy to have such a referendum, but I agree with the hon. Lady that it is very important that she and others get out the message about the value of exports and the importance for manufacturing of the UK’s membership of the single market. That is why I shall vote in the same way as her on 23 June.

Topical Questions

Rebecca Pow: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

George Osborne: The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.

Rebecca Pow: The innovative Claims Consortium Group in Taunton Deane has just received an Investors in People gold standard award, one of only 300 companies in the UK to have done so. It began in a back bedroom in Milverton just a few years ago, and it now employs 300 people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is Taunton Deane an excellent place to do business, as this company demonstrates, but so is the whole of the wider south-west, thanks to the infrastructure and connectivity injections this Government are giving it?

George Osborne: Let me join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Claims Consortium Group on its award. I am glad that it has been recognised for its hard work. She is absolutely right that Taunton, and indeed the whole of the south-west, is a great place to do business. We are now investing huge sums in the roads and railways, broadband and housing. Of course, without her I do not think we would be having the A358 upgrade. There is a general lesson, which is that when the south-west votes blue, the voice of the south-west is heard in Parliament.

John Martin McDonnell: It is not just on tax that people are concerned about the behaviour of the super-rich and its impact on the economy.  I hope that the Chancellor will join me in welcoming the action taken by shareholders at BP’s annual general meeting against the excessive pay awards recommended by the company’s remuneration committee. The chief executive’s pay in FTSE 100 companies has risen from 50 times the average employee’s in the 1990s to 150 times today. Will he support measures to tackle the remuneration racket? To many, an old boys’ network appears to operate to set each other’s pay. In particular, will he support the widening of shareholder representation and employee representation on remuneration committees?

George Osborne: It is absolutely right that companies and the shareholders who own those companies think about their pay policy, act responsibly and do not pay excessive amounts to chief executives who do not deserve them. It is this Government who introduced those shareholder votes—they did not exist under previous Labour Governments—and I am glad that shareholders are using the opportunity we have given them. I do not think, if this is what the hon. Gentleman is hinting at, that we should be putting trade unions on company boards, but I do agree that we should make sure that shareholders use all the tools available to them.

Byron Davies: Will the Chancellor update the House on any discussions he has had for a potential city deal for the Swansea Bay city region, and on what he can do to drive growth and create jobs in south-west Wales, particularly in my Gower constituency?

George Osborne: First, we are now in conversation with Swansea about what we can do for the city deal. We are of course acutely aware that we need to help the steelworkers in Port Talbot. We are working to achieve a sale of the site, but we are also helping those who have already been made redundant. We are also looking very closely at the tidal bay lagoon scheme and at whether we can make that fly as well.

Rushanara Ali: Analysis by the House of Commons Library, including that on the 2016 Budget, shows that, cumulatively, 86% of savings in the period between 2010 and 2020 will come from women’s pockets. What has the Chancellor got against women?

Harriett Baldwin: The analysis by the House of Commons Library is fundamentally flawed. First, it assumes that every pound of Government borrowing benefits people. It also does not highlight the fact that it is higher rate taxpaying women such as me, whose child benefit has been ended, who form the largest part of that group. Is the hon. Lady saying that her party wants to reinstate child benefit for higher rate taxpayers?

Stephen Hammond: Last year when I held a small business breakfast in Wimbledon, the level of business rates was the biggest issue, so my constituents are understandably delighted with the Chancellor’s permanent doubling of small business rate relief. Will my right hon. Friend say what else he is doing and what else the Government can do to support small businesses to ensure that they invest for growth and further jobs?

George Osborne: Small business is absolutely fundamental to the economy and to job creation. That is why we had such a big package in the Budget to help ease the burden of business rates and why we reduced corporation tax, which is paid by small companies that are in profit. We have also increased the annual investment allowance so that small businesses can invest in the future. To help them with the burden of the national living wage we have increased the employment allowance so that they can employ four people on the national living wage and pay no national insurance at all.

Martyn Day: The Panama papers unearthed an array of revelations, amid which was the exposure of the relationship between tax and land ownership. What steps are the Government taking to ensure transparency of land ownership across the UK?

David Gauke: This Government are bringing in a register so that we will know the beneficial ownership of people or structures holding property in this country. We have not had that before, and we are making progress on it.

Chloe Smith: In the Budget, the Chancellor outlined measures on tax avoidance and evasion to bring in about £12 billion. How much more does he expect to bring in from the measures announced since, which we all welcome, to make every business in this land pay its fair share?

George Osborne: The Office for Budget Responsibility assesses and puts on the scorecard the estimated revenue that we will raise from tax avoidance, but it will be around an extra £1 billion a year just from the measures in the Budget. In last year’s Budget after the election, we had measures to raise £5 billion from clamping down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion. The fight continues.

Judith Cummins: Following reports in this morning’s  that energy firms overcharged customers by £130 for their energy this winter, does the Chancellor agree that Treasury cuts to incentives for building new renewable energy sources were another one of his bad ideas?

Damian Hinds: As we covered earlier, the tariff system in place to encourage renewable energy has to deliver a balanced portfolio of energy, and it does so. Of course, we encourage energy firms always to pass price cuts that they benefit from on to their customers.

Alan Mak: All 31 local firms that have reached the final of my Havant small business awards will benefit from the Government’s corporation tax cut. Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating all the finalists and confirm that the Government will continue to support small businesses across the country?

George Osborne: I join my hon. Friend, who is such  an excellent voice for Havant in this Parliament, in congratulating the small businesses in the Havant  constituency. They are thriving, and we are helping them with major improvements to roads and infrastructure in the area.

Alistair Carmichael: 

David Gauke: Let me be absolutely clear with the House that we are not talking about quarterly tax returns. This is not about having to do a full tax return but about reporting; indeed, the purpose of the changes is ultimately to reduce the burden on businesses. It will start to be introduced in 2018. I hope that we will set out further information about the plans in the coming weeks. The intention is to ensure that we reduce the tax gap and, ultimately, help businesses to comply with the tax system.

Charles Walker: I thank the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary for their good humour in their dealings with me over the past few days. This afternoon I will be moving new clause 9 to the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill. Are the Government now minded to accept new clause 9?

George Osborne: It is quite right that we take action against money laundering. That cannot only be done in this country—it needs to be done internationally. We should focus our effort, our resources and the force of the law where the risks are greatest. Like other Members of Parliament, I have been concerned that banks are at risk of going too far and being disproportionate when applying their rules to politically exposed persons in Britain, and their families in particular. I have written to the chief executives of the individual banks. My hon. Friend has worked with us on this issue and has tabled his new clause. We are happy to accept it because we are all trying to achieve the same goal.

Meg Hillier: The Public Accounts Committee report issued last week highlighted the £16 billion of the tax gap that is tax fraud. The money brought into the Treasury for that has stayed pretty static, at 3% of total tax liability. Does the Chancellor think that there is more to be done, and does the fact that the number of the wealthiest individuals being investigated will increase from 35 to 100 by 2020 not demonstrate that he has missed an opportunity?

David Gauke: We are taking strong action on tax evasion and significantly increasing the number of criminal investigations—I understand that around 90 investigations into offshore tax evasion are currently ongoing. We announced in the Budget last summer an additional £800 million for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to support its activities, and through the common reporting standard—and ultimately through registers of beneficial interest—we are now getting access to much more information so that we can take on offshore tax evaders.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Quite a lot of people whom I would have called have toddled out of the Chamber. There seems to be a bit of a lack of stamina—very unfortunate—although not from Lucy Frazer.

Lucy Frazer: I welcome the fairer funding consultation that has just closed. When taking into account figures for growth in pupil numbers, will the Minister consider the actual numbers for the new school year, rather than the previous one, to ensure that we have a truly fairer funding formula?

Damian Hinds: The national funding formula will address historical unfairness. As now, school budgets will be set on the basis of the pupil census in the October prior to the start of the funding year, giving schools the certainty they need. The Department’s consultation also proposes to include a new factor to recognise in-year growth, targeting funding to schools with significant increases in pupil numbers.

Tom Elliott: Nobody has ever accused me of a lack of stamina, Mr Speaker. Am I right and accurate in my assessment that LIBOR funds can be used only for charitable purposes and will not go to a Department?

Greg Hands: The question is, I hope, about Air Ambulance Northern Ireland, and I confirm that we are working with the charity and the Northern Ireland Executive on how those funds are delivered. They will go to the air ambulance charity, which I know will be broadly welcomed across all communities in Northern Ireland.

Gerald Howarth: In his document published yesterday, the Chancellor posed the question:
“Is our national security best served by retreating from the world?”
I hope that he is not foolish enough to suggest that those of us who wish the United Kingdom to leave the European Union want to retreat from the world, because the truth is far from that. We want the United Kingdom to break free from the sclerotic shackles of the EU and its superstate, and embrace the exciting world out there that befits the world’s fifth largest economy, a nuclear power, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

George Osborne: Of course I respect my hon. Friend’s views. We are having a referendum, and his vote and my vote count equally. I would make the point that our membership of the European Union enhances our national security—that point was also raised by the Secretary-General of NATO last week. Not one of this country’s allies or friends abroad are recommending that we leave the EU.

Andrew Gwynne: The number of people sleeping rough on our streets has doubled since 2010 and increased by 30% in the past year alone, which is a shocking indictment of Government policy and society as a whole. Will the Chancellor step in and intervene in the shambles that is the Housing and  Planning Bill, and ensure that support for homeless people such as hostels and specialist accommodation is protected?

George Osborne: In the Budget we provided more than £100 million extra to help with the problem of homelessness and the particular problem of rough sleeping. We have provided money for second-stage accommodation for people as they leave hostels, to ensure that they have secure accommodation to go to. I am always happy to listen to further representations or ideas from the hon. Gentleman or any other Member.

Edward Leigh: The Treasury cannot even get its forecast for growth and the deficit correct for next year. Does the Chancellor realise that instructing his officials to produce a speculative report based on thoroughly tendentious figures about what might or might not happen in the event of Brexit simply belittles the reputation of the Treasury for economic competence and forecasting? Instead of relying on fear, why does he not give us his vision, compared with our vision of a free people in a free Parliament, controlling our own borders and leading the world towards free trade?

George Osborne: Our positive vision is that by being part of a reformed EU we can raise living standards, create more jobs and make sure that consumers have access to lower prices. We have set out in the Treasury analysis a range of possibilities for the alternatives that might happen if Britain leaves the European Union. All of them would make Britain permanently poorer, but if my hon. Friend and the leave campaign want to produce their own plan and their own analysis, then be my guest.

Callum McCaig: Last week, the Financial Secretary confirmed to me that details obtained from Crown dependencies and overseas territories and shared with the UK would not be passed on to other tax jurisdictions. If that remains the case, there is a real chance that the UK would be complicit in tax evasion. Will the Chancellor urgently review the situation to ensure that tax is paid where it is due?

David Gauke: It is the case that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are, at our prompting, ensuring that they have got registers of beneficial interests. It is also the case that the UK is co-operating, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, with other jurisdictions. I hope we move to a position whereby public registers are the norm, but even before we get to that point, clearly we will look at the opportunities for the information on the central registers to be shared among co-operative economies and jurisdictions.

Stewart Jackson: I remember the good old days when the Chancellor regarded Treasury predictions as so discredited that he established the Office for Budget Responsibility instead. I cannot think what could have changed. The GDP projections in his dodgy dossier are predicated on breaking our manifesto commitment on immigration, while the cost implications of his new policy of mass migration for school places, housing, health and transport are not made explicit in the document. Why is that?

George Osborne: We are having a referendum, and people are going to take different views on the prospects of the United Kingdom as we go forward, but the public want facts and information. We have set out in the analysis produced by the Treasury what we think the likely impacts on the economy will be, and this analysis has now been supported by the London School of Economics. It gives out a similar message to that provided by the Bank of England on the economic shock that would come if we leave. Then there are bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and others saying a similar thing. The weight of evidence and the weight of opinion is clear: there would be an economic price if we left the EU. Some regard that as a price worth paying, which is a perfectly respectable argument, but it is not one that I agree with.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must now move on to the statement.

Libya

Philip Hammond: With permission, I shall update the House on the current situation in Libya and on what the Government are doing to support the new Libyan Government of national accord.
Yesterday, I visited Tripoli; it was the first time that a British Foreign Secretary had done so since 2011. The fact that the visit was able to take place is a positive sign of the progress made in recent weeks, including in the security situation in and around the capital. During my visit, I met Prime Minister Sarraj and members of the Presidency Council in the naval base that has been the headquarters of the Government of national accord since they relocated to Tripoli on 30 March. I welcomed their commitment to representing all the Libyan people and the progress they have made in establishing the GNA as a Government of the whole of Libya.
I underlined to Prime Minister Sarraj the UK’s support for the GNA as the only legitimate Government of Libya. They have the endorsement of the Libyan political dialogue and the majority of members of the House of Representatives. I believe the Libyan people want them to succeed. We look forward to the House of Representatives completing its formal vote of endorsement in line with its obligations under the Libyan political agreement.
I was encouraged to hear from Prime Minister Sarraj and his Ministers about the steps they are taking to assume control of Government Ministries in Tripoli. After five years of conflict following the overthrow of Gaddafi, the Libyan people are weary of fighting and eager for peace. They want a Government who will start to address the many challenges Libya faces. It is important that the international community works in partnership with the GNA as they continue to consolidate their position and take forward their work to meet the needs of Libyan citizens across the country.
In my meetings, I emphasised the need to keep up momentum on the political process and to deliver practical progress on the ground. I was encouraged to hear that a clear plan was being developed to address some of the immediate challenges: delivering security, tackling Daesh, restoring basic public services, countering people-trafficking, restarting oil production, and getting the economy back on track.
We agreed that delivering security was fundamental to improving the day-to-day lives of the Libyan people and creating an environment for economic reactivation. The security agenda must, of course, be owned and led by the GNA, but the UK, along with other European nations, stands ready to respond to requests from the Libyan Government for assistance in training the Libyan armed forces in order to improve their effectiveness in providing security and in the fight against Daesh. Prime Minister Sarraj and I agreed that we should continue to work closely to establish what those training and technical support requirements were, and what role, if any, the international community could play in helping to meet them.
A number of Members have speculated in recent days that the Government might be on the cusp of committing British troops to Libya in a combat, or combat support,  role. I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify the situation. I am clear about the fact that there is no appetite in Libya for foreign combat troops on the ground. We do not anticipate any requests from the GNA for ground combat forces to take on Daesh or any other armed groups, and we have no plans to deploy troops in such a role. I will, of course, keep the House informed of any plans that we develop in the future in response to requests from the Libyan Government, but the type of mission that we currently envisage would be focused on providing training and technical support, away from any front-line operations.
The Libyan economy is suffering from the effects of years of conflict and the impact of low oil prices. It is clear that the Presidency Council is focused on the immediate need to alleviate the pressures on ordinary Libyans, including those arising from the current squeeze on liquidity in the banking system, the shortfall in power generation and the shortage of basic commodities, as well as the slightly longer-term challenge of ensuring the effective functioning of the key state financial institutions—the Central Bank of Libya, the National Oil Corporation and the Libyan Investment Authority—and the challenge of rebuilding oil production and export capacity. As I said to Prime Minister Sarraj, the UK stands ready to provide whatever technical assistance it can with those issues, in all of which British companies have relevant experience and expertise to share.
As for the migration threat, there is clearly an urgent need to tackle the challenges arising from irregular migration and the organised criminal and terrorist networks that facilitate so much of it. In my discussions, I highlighted our desire to work in close partnership with the GNA to make progress on that issue, including progress in tackling the people-smugglers and traffickers. As part of that initiative, we should look at creating a package of support that could include extending the EU’s naval Operation Sophia and building the capacity of the Libyan coastguard to support, and eventually take over, the operation, but clearly such a package would be implemented only at the invitation of the Libyan Government.
Yesterday I announced that Britain would allocate £10 million for technical support to the GNA in this financial year, to be delivered through the conflict, security and stability fund. The package will support the strengthening of political participation, economic development, and the delivery of capacity in security, justice and defence. We will work closely with the GNA to ensure that that support is channelled into the areas where it can have the greatest effect.
After years of conflict in Libya, the formation of the Government of national accord and their arrival in Tripoli have the potential to mark a real turning point in Libya’s fortunes. The challenges facing the GNA should not be underestimated, and delivering the security and economic development that will allow the Libyan people to realise their country’s huge potential will not be an easy task to fulfil, but the UK, together with many of our international partners, stands ready to assist. It is in all our interests that Prime Minister Sarraj and his Government are able to re-establish security, reactivate the economy, and defeat Daesh in Libya  as quickly as possible. I commend this statement to  the House.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement. The situation in Libya over the past five years has been bloody and dangerous, and it is important to recall that it was Colonel Gaddafi’s brutal and violent response to the protests that erupted early in 2011 that triggered a civil war and United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, which authorised a no-fly zone and action to protect civilians. This House voted to support that action, but since Gaddafi’s fall, Libya has become a land of rival governments awash with rival militias. There is also the growing presence of Daesh and insecurity. Questions have been raised about the focus of this Government, and indeed of the international community, on what followed.
I join the Foreign Secretary in praising the enormous efforts of Libyan politicians, of the United Nations and of Special Representative Martin Kobler to reconcile the competing institutions and encourage them to form a single Government of national unity. I also join him in supporting UN resolution 2259, which has recognised the progress that has been made and called on member states to provide support to the new Government as requested .
We on this side of the House welcome the establishment of the Libyan Government of national accord led by Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj. As the Foreign Secretary said, they face a formidable task in ensuring security, restoring public services, building up the economy and tackling the threat from Daesh, but does he agree that their ability to do so will be determined by the extent to which they can gain support and consent right across Libya as they face the task of re-establishing governance in all parts of the country? Will he set out what assessment he has made of their capacity to do that, particularly in respect of the rival militias? Can he say anything more about the conversations he is having with our allies, including other EU Foreign Ministers, about what further steps could be taken to support stability and peace in Libya? Does he expect there to be a further UN Security Council resolution?
The United Kingdom Government indicated previously that they were not contemplating a British combat mission in Libya. Given the circumstances there, I think that that is the right approach to take, and I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for confirming again today that the Government have no plans to deploy British troops in such a role. Can he therefore give us a categorical assurance that, were that view to change, any proposal to deploy forces in a combat role would come before this House for a vote?
The Foreign Secretary has, however, spoken about the possibility of providing training for the Libyan military. Did Prime Minister Sarraj ask for specific types of technical or training support during their recent discussions? Does the Foreign Secretary envisage that any such deployment, should it happen, would take place in Libya, or might it involve providing training in a neighbouring country? Will he give an undertaking that he will come to the House before any such deployment takes place and seek its approval as appropriate?
On economic development, we support all efforts by the international community to assist the new Government in improving the lives of their citizens and getting the  economy moving again, including through oil production. On migration, is further support being requested by the new Prime Minister, or is that being considered through the EU naval operation in the Mediterranean, Operation Sophia, to enhance Libya’s ability to disrupt criminal human smuggling and people trafficking? The people of Libya have suffered a great deal in recent years, and this moment is enormously important for their future. It is the responsibility of the world community to do all that it can to help the new Government to succeed.

Philip Hammond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Let me join in his praise of UN Special Representative Martin Kobler—it was remiss of me not to give that praise myself—who is an absolute dynamo. Since he was appointed, he has literally been shuttling between the parties, groups and power brokers in Libya. It is very much due to his energy and effort that we have got where we are today.
There is a Government of national unity, but we should be clear about Libya’s historical context: it is a country that has traditionally had a high degree of devolution in its governance structure, which is often held together by a strong man at the centre. We now need to find a new model, under which the Government of national accord will be a national umbrella organisation, but Prime Minister Sarraj has made it clear that that will work only if municipalities are empowered and prepared to take on a significant degree of devolution. A devolved model is the only model that will work.
I also need to make it clear that the Libyan Government are in a very early stage of operation. At the moment, the Prime Minister and his Ministers are sitting in a naval base, physically separated from the civil servants who could support them. Yesterday, they retook operational control of three Ministries, which is a good step forward, but it will only be as they are able to re-enter the Ministries and regain working contact with civil servants that they can start to do some of the detailed work. That situation underpins and shapes my answers to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, because he is absolutely right that the GNA can succeed only with the support and consent of the various factions  in Libya.
Let me say one other thing by way of scene-setting. When I went to Tripoli yesterday, I was expecting to find the Government incarcerated in a heavily fortified military base, defending against all comers, but that is not the situation. The base is relatively lightly defended, and it was clear that the Prime Minister’s ability to operate there is based on the consent and acquiescence of the militias operating in that part of the capital. He is acutely conscious of the need to build a bottom-up consensus around his activities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the European Union. I returned from Tripoli to Luxembourg last night, where there was a discussion at 28, including Defence Minister colleagues, about future support to Libya, looking at the possibility of extending Operation Sophia in a counter-migration role. No decisions were taken, but the matter is clearly high on the European Union’s agenda. The key will be to develop a package that also addresses Libyan top priorities. The Libyans are focused on migration, but it is in all honesty not their top priority. We have to create an environment in which delivering on Europe’s top priorities also addresses those of the Libyan people.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a UN Security Council resolution. I have not heard anyone suggest that there is an immediate need for a further resolution. The next moves at the UN will be the granting of some exemptions to the arms embargo, and possibly the unfreezing of some assets to allow the Government to function properly.
The House would of course be consulted were the UK Government to decide at any point that they wanted to insert ground forces, or any forces, in Libya in a combat role. We do not envisage that happening in the current circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in which a training deployment is contemplated, and asked me whether we would seek the House’s approval for  a training deployment. I should be clear that it is a question not of approval, but of consulting the House and allowing it to express an opinion through a vote, and the history of the past three years shows that the Government will take great notice of that. However, that would not be the case in the event of a training deployment. We have training deployments around the world. In fact, my Ministry of Defence colleagues informed me just before I came to the House that we currently have 16 permanent training deployments. It is not appropriate for the House to be consulted on such a deployment as if it were a combat deployment.
Did the Libyan Prime Minister ask for training support? Not explicitly, but he did indicate that the Libyan Government may well ask the international community for some form of support as they develop their plans. I gained the personal impression that his instinct is very much at the lighter end of the scale. He clearly does not want to be seen to be dependent on foreign support and wants to do as much as possible internally, using Libyan capabilities. Of course, if there is any question of training, we would want to look at the options for training outside Libya, as well as the permissibility of training inside Libya.

Crispin Blunt: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and last night’s European Council conclusions on Libya. The sanctioning of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is welcome, as he has been a particular obstacle to the formation of the GNA. Also welcome is the commitment that the EU—and, I therefore assume, the British—contribution will be coherent and co-ordinated with other international support under the overall co-ordination of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya. A coherent British contribution will be easier with the consent and understanding of this House. It might need to include, for example, airstrikes on Daesh targets in addition to the training mission to which he alludes.
I counsel the Foreign Secretary that he is dancing on pretty thin ice when it comes to differentiating between a training mission in a combat zone and other missions, and when he talks about not seeking to carry this House’s approval. I notice the language he has used in talking about being away from the frontline of operations. I wonder whether he can say anything more about  that. I urge him to continue to try to carry this House with him.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right that any kind of international support will be more effective if it is properly co-ordinated. The work of the European Union, the Libya international assistance mission—LIAM—and the UNSMIL planning cell, which is already in operation, should be and will be co-ordinated.
Let me be clear that any proposal to carry out airstrikes in support of a counter-Daesh operation absolutely would trigger the convention that the Government consult the House and allow a vote, through which the House could express its view on the proposed intervention.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, which he has expressed several times both in the House and in various newspapers, that the lines between what is a combat mission and what is a training mission could be blurred in situations such as Libya’s, but we are clear that we can make that distinction. I draw his attention to Afghanistan, which is a kinetic theatre if ever there was one, yet our training mission has been successfully conducted there for the past 15 months with great effect. In Iraq, we carry out training activities in an active war zone. There is a big difference between training and advising troops and engaging in combat activities. The Government are extremely mindful of that distinction and of the obligations that they have entered into in respect of consulting the House.

Stephen Gethins: I also praise the work of Martin Kobler and of the British ambassador to Libya, whom I met in Tunis and who has been making the best of a very difficult job. Libya has been an unmitigated disaster for this Government. We even had a sitting US President criticise a sitting UK Prime Minister. A UN official described the UK’s humanitarian efforts as
“paltry bone-throwing from a European country whose bombers reaped so much destruction”.
We do not have a good record on Libya.
Following the questions of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who raised a good point as usual, will the Foreign Secretary tell us how much of the mission he envisages taking place on Libyan soil? As for what he calls a training mission, will any deployment of UK troops on Libyan soil be brought to this House for consideration? Given that he can only have meetings in the naval base, how does he envisage a training mission in Libya taking place at the moment? Finally, does he commend the US President’s candour in saying that Libya was his worst mistake, and what does he think has been the Prime Minister’s worst foreign policy mistake?

Philip Hammond: It is very easy to sit on the Opposition Benches hurling stones, but I am afraid that the world is not a neat and tidy place, and we have to deal with the situations that present themselves. The hon. Gentleman talks about the humanitarian work, but I remind him that, when we intervened in Libya in 2011, it was to prevent an imminent genocide in Benghazi and that that successful intervention saved countless thousands of lives. Libya is a rich country, and we should not forget that—$70-odd billion-worth of Libyan assets outside the country are currently frozen by a UN Security Council resolution. This is about getting the Government in place and then releasing those assets so that the Government can function. Libya is not a country that  needs humanitarian assistance in the conventional sense. It needs technical support with good governance, and help to get into a position where we can release its assets to it to enable it to function.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the British ambassador. I join him in paying tribute to the work of our ambassador, who is currently based in Tunis. He came with me yesterday to Tripoli and it is his fervent desire, as it is mine and Prime Minister Sarraj’s, to reopen the British embassy in Tripoli as soon as we are able to do so. Unfortunately, the location of our current buildings in Tripoli is in a rather less secure part of town, so I cannot promise that that will be imminent, but we will keep the matter under constant review and do it as soon as we can.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether any training mission to Libya would take place on Libyan soil, and I have to say to him, yet again, that there is no training mission, there is no putative training mission and there has been no request for a training mission. I speak as a former Defence Secretary when I say that, if there is a request for such a mission, the military will clearly want to ensure that it is undertaken with the minimum risk possible to UK personnel. Therefore, their first preference would be to do it here, their next preference would be to do it somewhere in the region and their third preference would be to do it in Libya, if it is safe to do so. I assure him that we will spare no effort in trying to ensure that any support we do give to the Libyans will be delivered in a way that represents the least possible risk to the British forces delivering it.

John Baron: There can be no doubt that our intervention in Libya in 2011 has, as some in this House have suggested, been an unmitigated disaster resulting in many thousands of casualties, the establishment of Daesh and a vicious civil war. Looking forward, given that this country is at a tipping point of its involvement with Libya, given developments on the ground, what lessons can we learn?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend, as so often, asserts as fact that there “can be no doubt” on something that is deeply contentious, and I very much take issue with him. The situation in Libya is very difficult and the situation post-2011 was very messy, but countries in many parts of the world do not function as Britain or Switzerland do, and we have to deal with the real situation on the ground. We should look to the future. We should be positive about this potentially affluent country regaining stability and being able, once again, to function as an effective state, allowing the Libyan people to get on with their business. There is a weariness after five years and a growing sense that, if a properly devolved form of government can be established that co-opts the various militias and regional groupings, this can work.

Derek Twigg: What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the size of Daesh in Libya and its capability, and does he have any idea what its plan is? Is it going to sit tight or move outwards to try to expand into the rest of Libya?

Philip Hammond: Speaking from memory, I think that our current assessment—the last assessment I have seen—is that there are probably up to about 3,000 Daesh fighters   in Libya, of whom a significant number would be foreign fighters. There is a generally accepted view that what Daesh is doing in Libya at the moment is very much a holding operation, seeking to hold an area of ground, possibly as a bolthole if it finds that its freedom of manoeuvre and freedom to operate is coming under intolerable pressure in Syria. There are many pointers to the fact that now is the time to move against Daesh in Libya, while its presence is still relatively thin on the ground and while its operation is very much in a holding phase.

Damian Green: One measure of success of the new Libyan Government will be the creation of  a functioning economy and, as a step towards that, a functioning central bank. Can Britain play any role in helping them achieve that?

Philip Hammond: Yes, and yesterday I offered Prime Minister Sarraj technical support in relation to the central bank, the national oil company and the Libyan Investment Authority. It is a tribute to Libyan resilience and ingenuity that international partners recognise the figures who have continued to run those institutions throughout this period of chaos over the past few years as technically competent and well motivated—they have been doing a good job. Prime Minister Sarraj has now brought the competing appointees—the eastern and the western chairmen of each of those institutions—together to work together and to seek to forge consensus on how the institutions can go forward as truly national institutions on a collaborative basis.

Gisela Stuart: I was interested in what the Foreign Secretary had to say about the current state of Daesh, and how it needs to be contained now and not allowed to spread further. Are we talking to other allies, such as Jordan, about working on training deployments and training up troops? If we do not contain Daesh now in north Africa, it will simply be an expanding problem.

Philip Hammond: Yes, we are talking to other partners, such as Jordan, about how we can provide support to the Libyan Government. Of course other actors are acting independently; Egypt has a recognised vital interest, because of its long land border with Libya, and some of the problems Egypt has been facing in the Western desert are directly attributable to penetration from Libya. The House will recall the continuing issue of General Haftar, the commander of the Libyan national army. He is an important figure who commands significant military forces in the east but is unacceptable as a command figure to many who are supporting the new Government. That is one of the big challenges Prime Minister Sarraj is facing.

Andrew Murrison: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and, in particular, the reassurances it contains about the use of British troops exclusively in training and mentoring, if that becomes necessary. Does he recall the disaster that was the training of Libyans in the UK? Will he assure the House that those mistakes have been noted and lessons have been learnt, and that, if he does intend to train Libyans in the UK, as his statement suggested, we will not make those mistakes again?

Philip Hammond: Yes, and we are not the only ones who had a poor experience with seeking to train Libyans outside Libya—the Italians and Bulgarians had similar experiences. Prime Minister Sarraj referred to that yesterday and is acutely conscious of what was not a very glorious episode in Libyan history. The situation on the ground has changed, but clearly we would look for the most effective location for any training. It is probably the case that that would not be in the UK, for climatic reasons as much as for anything else; we need to train people in an environment as close as possible to the one in which they will be operating. As I have said, there has been no request and there is as yet no plan, so I am afraid I cannot impart to the House any more information.

Keith Vaz: May I welcome the progress that has been made but say that I am disappointed that more has not been offered to deal with the migration crisis? There has been an 80% increase in the number of crossings between Libya and Italy. This time last year, half a million people were waiting in Libya to get to Italy. As we know, the European Union is offering Turkey €3 billion to deal with the migration crisis and offering Libya nothing. What we need is permission to enter Libyan coastal waters in order to stop the people traffickers. Did the Foreign Secretary ask for that permission? When can we have that permission, so that we can deal robustly with people trafficking?

Philip Hammond: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose question, I am sure, is well motivated, that he is approaching this in exactly the wrong way? We are not likely to get the buy-in we need if we, as a bunch of Europeans, go to Libya and say, “Here’s our priority agenda. What are you going to do about delivering it?” What we must do, and what I suggested to my European colleagues last night that we should do, is package the objectives that we want to achieve with the objectives that are priorities for the Libyans. That is the only way that Prime Minister Sarraj will be able to sell to the Libyan people a package that in any way questions Libya’s territorial sovereignty and that allows foreigners to operate in Libya’s waters. We must be acutely sensitive to the concerns in Libya about foreigners. I am in a rather strange position in that, on the one hand, I have one bunch of people in this House who are primarily concerned to ensure that we do not have any foreigners going into Libya, and, on the other, the right hon. Gentleman who is desperately keen to get some foreign naval forces into its territorial waters. The truth is that we must balance this very carefully and get a package that works for the Libyans as well as for the European agenda.

Edward Leigh: The Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary speak in grandiloquent terms of Prime Minister Sarraj, a Government of national accord and even a House of Representatives. Any member of the British public watching “News at Ten” last night would have seen our Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of national accord holed up in a naval base, unable to leave because they control none of the country. Apparently, they now control three ministerial buildings in a country the size of western Europe. Can we have a reality check, please? Can the Government at last realise that their bid to undermine authoritarian leaders such as Saddam Hussein,  Gaddafi, who had a deal with the Italian Government to return migrants, and now Assad has just involved the region in death and destruction? Can we just learn the lessons, try and find a strongman, and do what the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee wants—and what we all want—and find a way of creating some kind of safe haven for migrants to be returned to?

Philip Hammond: The Chinese have a saying that a journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. I urge my hon. Friend to view this process in that context. Self-evidently, I did manage to get out of the naval base in Tripoli yesterday and return to these shores.
My hon. Friend is being a little harsh on Prime Minister Sarraj and what he has achieved. There is a process going on whereby militias—who, only a couple of weeks ago, were threatening to shoot down any aircraft seeking to enter the airport in Tripoli bringing his Government back into the city—are now patrolling the streets outside that naval base and were present on the ground when I landed in Tripoli yesterday. They have recognised and given tentative consent to this Government process to go forward. Its success will depend on Prime Minister Sarraj making the right judgments and being patient enough to bring all the relevant parties with him as he develops a plan for his Government.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Foreign Secretary for an advance copy of his statement and congratulate him on his recent visit. Given the failure of the past two Labour Administrations to secure adequate compensation for victims of Libya-supplied Semtex in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland—at the same time America was able to get that compensation—will he now indicate that he will redeem this situation and place on the agenda of the Government of national accord and the Prime Minister that compensation will be a key issue that this Government will pursue with the new Administration?

Philip Hammond: I can confirm that it is already on the agenda. Prime Minister Sarraj is aware of our focus on this issue, but it is a question of timing. At the moment, the Government have not got access to the great majority of their ministries and civil servants. They do not have access to their assets, so it would be premature to make that the No.1 issue. However, this Government are focused on the need to raise and to resolve these issues at the right point in this progression, and Prime Minister Sarraj has already been notified that we will do so.

Mark Field: We have seen a very thoughtful exchange between the Foreign Secretary and his shadow. Although there are flickers of optimism, the atmosphere remains very sombre, not least because, as other Members have pointed out, we have responsibility to a large extent for what has happened in Libya over the past five years. I say to my right hon. Friend, who has dealt with this whole issue of technical and other expertise very skilfully, that the British public would be very reluctant if there were any sense that our expertise was going into helping one side rather than another in what could still be a very bloody civil war. Although I appreciate that these are difficult things and that there are often no good guys on either   side, there must be an appreciation that that would be something that would cause angst to the public if we are to have a functioning Libya in the years ahead.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. If only it were so simple as there being two sides; there are about 120 sides as far as I can make out. He is absolutely right. Of course we must ensure that our support is targeted at the Government of national accord. We have to look for bright spots. One of the positive things that I take from the situation in Libya is that, by and large, the different factions are not motivated by ideology, particularly by extreme religious ideology, as they are in some of the other conflict zones. A lot of this is to do with traditional money and power interests. It is about people wanting to protect their local fiefdoms and making sure that they and their communities get their share of the wealth of the state. Prime Minister Sarraj is going about this in exactly the right way. He is going with the grain of Libyan society, recognising that reality and trying to build a consensus mechanism around it.

Jo Cox: What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer that our key partners, particularly in Europe, have a coherent strategy on good governance and nation building as well as on the vital issues of migration and counter-terrorism? What reassurances did he get this week from the Government of national accord that they have a plan to broaden out what is essentially a UN-backed political deal, so it is not beholden, and therefore vulnerable, to the many rival regional factions?

Philip Hammond: The most effective step to broaden out the legitimacy of the Government will be the vote in the House of Representatives on the endorsement of the Government. The HOR is committed by the Libyan political agreement to do that, and we hope that it will happen very soon. On the question of our European partners, it is inevitably true that, for 26 of the other 27 EU states, excluding Ireland, migration is at the top of the agenda. It falls to me to urge them, as I urged the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, to accept that, if we want to make progress on the matter, we must try to set this in a context that makes sense not just to us, but to the Libyans.

Edward Argar: I welcome the progress the Foreign Secretary has outlined and appreciate his point about the practical realities on the ground. With that in mind, the long-term prospects for Libya are clearly linked to its economic prospects, which are in turn largely linked to the prospects of its oil industry. What steps, at this early stage, are UK Trade & Investment and the British Government taking to ensure that UK industry can play its full part in bringing the Libyan oil industry back on to the global market?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Libya has Africa’s largest oil and gas reserves and a population of only 6 million, so, clearly, it is, in per capita terms, a potentially wealthy country. I am glad to report that British companies have traditionally played an important role in Libya’s oil and gas industry, and Prime Minister Sarraj specifically made the point yesterday that BP would be very welcome back in the country. I shall pass that on to BP’s management.

Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary has said that there is no appetite in Libya for foreign combat troops on the ground. Is there any appetite in the Libyan political system for foreign air forces or foreign naval forces operating in Libyan territorial waters?

Philip Hammond: On the latter point, we have already seen a clear wariness of any suggestion of foreign naval forces operating in Libyan territorial waters, even if the focus is counter-migration rather than counter-Daesh. I cannot rule out—it would be wrong to do so—any future requests for air or naval support for a counter-Daesh operation. I can envisage Prime Minister Sarraj, if his Government are successful, being able to muster enough ground forces to mount an attack on the Daesh stronghold around Sirte which, of course, is a coastal port. It is certainly the case that the Libyans will not be able to develop naval or air assets in any reasonable period of time to support such an operation, and it is quite possible that, from a military point of view, they would seek assistance from outside. Prime Minister Sarraj would have to balance that military imperative with the political issues that would arise if he were to request foreign assistance. There has been no such request and no discussion of such a request, but if it comes, we will consider it. If we think that the UK should participate in such action, we will come to the House and allow it to express an opinion through a vote.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. A further 21 hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I am naturally keen to accommodate all of them. Brevity will assist me in doing so.

Johnny Mercer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I know that I might be a lone voice, but I urge him to guard against parliamentary approval for every military intervention we undertake, which is out of keeping with an enemy that moves fast and that we need to go up against.  May I ask the Foreign Secretary about a distinct strategy specifically to target Daesh, separate from but complementary to the wider diplomatic peace strategy? One can reinforce the other, but if we wait for the perfect political settlement before we start, we will be waiting forever.

Philip Hammond: I will treat my hon. Friend’s warning on the use of war powers with the importance it deserves. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary published a written statement yesterday setting out the Government’s position. We must maintain the operational flexibility we need while ensuring that the House of Commons has proper involvement in any proposed combat deployment.
I am sorry; what else did my hon. Friend ask me?

Johnny Mercer: About targeting Daesh.

Philip Hammond: Before the formation of the Government of national accord, there was discussion among the international community about how we would deal with Daesh if there was no solution on the ground in Libya. We concluded that it would be pretty much  impossible for us to do so. I am very pleased that we now have a Government formed in Libya that we can support to do that job.

Brendan O'Hara: The UK’s past intervention in Libya has been an unmitigated disaster. The mess we have left behind has caused enormous reputational damage to the United Kingdom and that cannot happen again. Given that we are offering training and technical support to armed forces away from the front line, will the Secretary of State tell me what armed forces we will be training and supporting, given that Libya has myriad competing militias and groups?

Philip Hammond: Another assertion. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was not the view of the people I met yesterday that the intervention in 2011 was an unmitigated disaster. It has rid the country of Gaddafi and averted a genocide. He talks in the present tense about training support, and I say yet again that we are delivering no training support in Libya at present. If any request from the Libyan Government for training support were made, it would be for militia groups that had signed up to the Government of national accord’s security plan and were being incorporated into the Libyan security forces that will be formed from them.

Henry Smith: Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I was struck by the Foreign Secretary’s correct comments that we need to continue to move against Daesh in Libya. What discussions have been held with Gulf state nations about helping that effort?

Philip Hammond: We do, of course, have continuing discussions with all Gulf states. It is a well-known fact that both Qatar and the UAE have in the past been active in Libya, but it is also fair to say that all Gulf states have been somewhat distracted by the war in Yemen and have not, perhaps, played as active a role recently as they did earlier in the conflict.

John Woodcock: Given the turmoil in Libya in the five years and one month since the House of Commons authorised action, does the Secretary of State regret having the UK acquiesce to transferring a mission that was designed under the responsibility to protect to avoid a genocide to one focused on regime change?

Philip Hammond: This was a complicated situation on the ground and, having embarked on the mission to protect the population of Benghazi against genocide and having had to follow where that took us to protect the population from the retribution that the regime was seeking to vent on it, we did what we had to do. I think we should be proud of having rid Libya of the tyrant Gaddafi, who had effectively dismantled the structure of government in Libya. That is why Libya has had its problems of the past few years—there was no government structure in Libya.

Alex Chalk: Deploying British troops to Libya, even in a strictly non-combat role, would add significantly to the demands already placed  on them. Can the Secretary of State provide any clarity about how many troops would be necessary and when we can expect to learn from the GNA whether British assistance is required?

Philip Hammond: I am afraid that I cannot, really. I can give a personal view: I would expect that we would be talking about a training mission of the sort of scale of those that we are carrying out in other countries around the world. I therefore would expect there to be between tens and hundreds of trainers, not thousands of trainers.

Graham Jones: The Foreign Secretary says that we must tackle Daesh, but Prime Minister Sarraj only operates with the permission of the militia. Does not the Foreign Secretary think that in certain circumstances some of the militia are aligned with malevolent forces, particularly in other parts of the country, and is he not concerned that the militia are at the heart of the Government and of the future process of government? Where will that leave Libya in the future?

Philip Hammond: I think that there is a misunderstanding about what the militia are. After 2011, Libya fragmented. Every city, every town and every region had its armed forces—armed men who were protecting their communities. That does not make them bad people. They are not extreme Islamists in most cases; they are simply people who have formed home defence units, and they are the only force on the ground. It is not possible to talk about raising new Libyan armed forces that will then take on all the militias—that would be a completely unrealistic project. The only way forward is to co-opt militias into a nascent Libyan armed forces, backed by a political system that is highly devolved and that assures them of autonomy and fair shares of Libya’s wealth for the communities they seek to back.

Laurence Robertson: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about Libyan-sponsored IRA murder, not only in Northern Ireland but in England, including in this city, while I understand the Foreign Secretary’s comments about timing, given that there is an emerging Government in Libya and that we will at some point be releasing between £7 billion and £8 billion of frozen assets from this country alone, will he and his ministerial team continue to do all they can to get compensation for people and their relatives who have suffered for far too long?

Philip Hammond: Yes, the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) extends, of course, to the WPC Yvonne Fletcher case.

Martin Docherty: Last week, on the Floor of the House, with a note of urgent caution, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) reminded us of how missions change and about the impact on our armed services, who might have to make decisions on the hoof. I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on that debate and the participation in it.
We are consistently told in this Parliament that NATO is our primary model of defence, yet all we heard about in the statement was the European Union and Europe’s  role. I am grateful for the European Union naval deployment and other initiatives by our European partners, who are doing a great job, but if the Libyan Government of national accord makes a request, what role will NATO play in that, given the myriad other organisations and nations involved, from Jordan to Hungary?

John Bercow: May I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman submits his academic treatise to his PhD adviser?

Philip Hammond: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was all in favour of the EU doing more. We are very clear. NATO is our principal war-fighting alliance, but we are not talking about war fighting here. We are talking about stabilisation, training and rebuilding, and the European Union and bilateral arrangements delivered by other European countries are absolutely the right way to go about achieving that. It is not a role of NATO.

Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend and the whole House will recognise that a peaceful, stable and prosperous Libya is in the interests of the region and of Europe. Can my right hon. Friend flesh out for the House the timetable envisioned for EU discussions to continue and conclude, working closely with the Libyan Government to ensure a positive and proactive response?

Philip Hammond: That is a good question, but the timetable will have to be determined by what is happening on the Libyan side. At the discussion last night, we were clear that we needed to work up a European Union package. There was mention of Turkey earlier, and the way in which the EU has dealt with Turkey on migration has not escaped the Libyans’ notice, so there will need to be a comprehensive proposal. As soon as it is appropriate to make the Libyan Government aware of what such a package might look like, the ball will then be in their court to decide whether they wish to request support.

Debbie Abrahams: When does the Foreign Secretary expect to receive the invitation to provide the support that he mentions? Will he elaborate on the specific mutual objectives and especially the timescales involved? Clearly our troops cannot be involved in open-ended support.

Philip Hammond: There is a spectrum here. In respect of the hard training of troops at infantry level, I think that we are quite a long way from any request to do that, if such a request comes at all. With regard to structuring military command structures in a civilian-led Ministry of Defence, I think it is quite likely that we will be asked quite soon if we can give some advice about that, but we will probably give such advice from Whitehall.

Alec Shelbrooke: As part of my role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I was in Algeria last week. The Algerian parliamentarians I met have much experience of bringing a country together after the dark decade, and they made it clear that they would like to help the Libyan Government through diplomacy in bringing together, as my right hon. Friend said, perhaps 120 different factions. I think the Algerians have a lot to offer and I know that my right hon. Friend  has met the President. Will he ensure that offers of help through non-military intervention are taken as far as possible with the new Libyan Government?

Philip Hammond: I would be very pleased to hear that the Algerians wanted to provide assistance, based on their own experience of rebuilding a country after a bitter civil war, and I am sure the Libyans would be pleased to receive such an offer.

John Bercow: I trust that the Algerian parliamentarians felt suitably privileged to meet the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).

Jim Shannon: I welcome the £10 million for technical support that the Foreign Secretary referred to, in particular for security, justice and defence. Will he consider that those who have served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who have demonstrated substantial knowledge, experience and ability in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia and Bosnia, should be part of the security training that will be offered?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. There has been an assumption across the House that any training that we give would have to be provided by UK military personnel. Some of what will be needed will be police training, and perhaps the PSNI in particular could make a contribution to that. It is also quite possible that some of the training—perhaps all training—will be delivered by contractors, and often ex-military personnel working for contractors, rather than by serving military personnel.

Philip Hollobone: The main concern of my constituents in Kettering about Libya is that the country is the main and growing conduit for illegal immigration from safe and unsafe countries in Africa. If the Government of national accord in Libya are unwilling or unable to make this a national priority, and if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is unable or unwilling to press the case for how important that is for us, what is the EU plan to prevent this year from being one of a disastrous set of circumstances in which we are about to experience a mass wave of illegal immigration very dangerously across the Mediterranean towards Italy?

Philip Hammond: To reassure my hon. Friend, the Libyan Government do understand the importance of that issue. They understand the importance for Libya because having organised criminal traffic across its borders undermines Libya’s sovereignty. They also understand the importance of addressing the issue for Libya’s relations with the international community. The point that I was making is that we must put this agenda in the context of the many other immediate challenges facing the Libyan people.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s second question about what the EU is doing in the meantime, EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia—the European naval operation in the Mediterranean—is designed to intercept people seeking to migrate on an irregular basis into the European Union from Libya.

Greg Mulholland: The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime estimated that the illegal migrant trade is worth $255 million to $323 million a year, so the £10 million is a hugely welcome contribution towards stopping that awful trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will also help to plug that gap in Libya’s economy so that its purpose will be positive?

Philip Hammond: As I have said before, Libya is potentially a rich country. It has significant oil and gas wealth and significant assets, so if the Government can get their assets unfrozen, they will not lack cash. The £10 million is a UK technical assistance fund. It will fund experts, the commissioning of studies and advice to the Libyan Government in the areas that I outlined.

Stephen Phillips: My right hon. Friend will know that the entire region of the Fezzan to the south of Wadi al Shatti is something of a black hole. We do not have a good idea of what is going on there, but we do know that instability and the ready availability of arms have created a threat to the whole of sub-Saharan and west Africa, not only from Daesh, but from Boko Haram, who have armed themselves from the Gaddafi arsenals. Can my right hon. Friend update the House about what the Government are doing to tackle that threat to sub-Saharan and west Africa from Libya?

Philip Hammond: The Libyan Government are acutely aware of the threat to their sovereignty from the porosity of Libya’s borders to the south and south-west. I am speculating, but that could be one of the areas where the international community is asked for technical support in the future. This is a very, very long border in an unpopulated area that is ideally suited to policing by technical means, rather than by border guards on the ground. My hon. and learned Friend will be reassured to know that Prime Minister Sarraj stated to me very clearly yesterday that although his Government are in Tripoli and the world is focused on Tripoli, he is acutely conscious of the fact that this must be a Government for the east and south of the country, as well as a Government for the west.

Daniel Zeichner: May I press the Foreign Secretary further on the question of where Libyan personnel might be trained in future? He will recall the unhappy saga in 2014 when some 2,000 Libyan personnel were trained at the Bassingbourn barracks in Cambridgeshire. That ended very badly, with a series of violent sexual assaults in my city of Cambridge when they were left out unsupervised. Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure residents in Cambridge that there will be no further training of Libyan personnel in Cambridgeshire? Will he also update the House on attempts to get back the £15 million that is left owing from the Libyan authorities after that sad experience?

Philip Hammond: I was Defence Secretary at the time, so I well remember the plans for training at Bassingbourn. As the hon. Gentleman says, it did not end well, and the Libyans are acutely conscious of that. This would be a very different operation in very different circumstances. There are no plans yet, and there has been no request, so I am afraid that I cannot give the House any further  information about what such a training programme might look like or where it would be conducted, but I can give him an assurance that the lessons of what happened at Bassingbourn have been taken on board by the Ministry of Defence and will be properly factored into any future plan.

Patrick Grady: If spending 13 times as much on bombing Libya as on reconstructing it is not one of the Prime Minister’s worst foreign policy decisions, I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could tell us what is. Of the £10 million announced today for the conflict security fund, how much will be counted as official development assistance, how much will be counted towards the NATO 2% target, and how much will be counted towards both?

Philip Hammond: I do not think that Libya qualifies for ODA because of its GDP per capita, but if I am wrong about that I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Stephen Doughty: The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the situation in Benghazi in the past, but the situation there remains extremely volatile and serious. Reuters was reporting over the weekend of extensive fighting and suicide attacks carried out by Daesh affiliates. I wonder what discussions he has had about the situation in and around Benghazi and whether he expects any requests for support to deal with operations in that region of Libya.

Philip Hammond: We did discuss that issue, and we did so in the context of General Haftar and the Libyan national army, which is active in that area. This is one of the challenges that Prime Minister Sarraj faces: one of the most effective military units available is under the command of General Haftar, who is a bête noire for many of the people who support the Government. But at the moment the Government do not have an alternative, and the effectiveness of the petroleum guard force and of the LNA in stemming Daesh attacks is an important part of the Government’s arsenal of defences. In the medium term, however, they will have to get all those units under some form of effective central control.

Hywel Williams: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We in Plaid Cymru agreed with the 2011 intervention to prevent an imminent large-scale murderous attack on civilians in Benghazi. Later on, in Benghazi itself, the Prime Minister said that we would
“stand with you as you build your democracy and build your country for the future.”
Will the Foreign Secretary guarantee that this time we will fulfil our promises?

Philip Hammond: That is exactly what we are doing. It has taken a regrettably long time to get from the end of the campaign in 2011 and the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi to the point where the Libyan people are now seriously starting to seek to rebuild their democracy and their economy, but they are now looking to do so and we will be there to support them.

Andrew Gwynne: The idea of Daesh being present in Libya is worrying enough in its own right, but the prospect of them moving their operational headquarters from Iraq and Syria to Libya should be deeply worrying for us all, especially the Secretary of State. What discussions has he had with his Libyan counterparts and with those countries neighbouring Libya on stemming the flow of Islamic militants into the country?

Philip Hammond: I have had discussions with the Libyans and with the Egyptians and Tunisians, who are very concerned about this. The problem is that the principal route of access into Libya for Daesh militants appears to be by sea, and the Libyans are struggling to control that route with their current resources.

Mark Durkan: We know from experience elsewhere that in fledgling democracies and troubled states that are rife with armed groups, corruption and conflict often become drivers for each other. We also know that refuge routes are being sought through Libya. In that context, is the Foreign Secretary right to minimise the relevance of a humanitarian and civil contribution, at least in the medium term?

Philip Hammond: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that Libya is not a poor country. There are tens of billions of dollars of Libyan assets owned by the Libyan people and available to the Libyan Government once the UN decides to unfreeze them, so I do not believe that Libya needs humanitarian support in the conventional sense. What it absolutely needs is technical support to build the governance structures that will allow the UN to release its own money to it.

Steven Paterson: Can the Foreign Secretary say something about the use of embedded troops in any future military operation? I appreciate   that there is no immediate prospect of that—he has been very clear about that—but would the House be consulted on any British military personnel being embedded within the armed forces of other nations?

Philip Hammond: The statement that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made yesterday clarified that point. Where troops or personnel are embedded in the military forces of other nations, they are treated as being part of those forces for operational purposes; they are not covered by the commitment we have made to come back to the House. It would be absurd if a British pilot embedded in the US navy, for example, maintaining our carrier base skills ahead of the commissioning of our own carriers in 2018, had to be the subject of a debate in the House of Commons because of some decision taken by the US Government.

Tom Elliott: In answer to a question last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said that the Government would facilitate a visit of UK victims of terrorism that involved Semtex to Libya in the near future. Now that the Foreign Secretary has gone there, is there any timescale for when we can expect such a visit?

Philip Hammond: I do not think that the conditions would be right for such a visit right now, and I cannot see exactly what the point would be at this stage. Once the Government of national accord are established in their Ministries, with access to their records and their competent civil servants, and once our ambassador is back in Tripoli, I will certainly be prepared to see what we can do to facilitate such a visit.

Point of Order

Andrew Gwynne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Treasury questions earlier today, a Minister, whether advertently or inadvertently, besmirched the work of the House of Commons Library. Given that the researchers in the Library are independent and impartial and their work is greatly valued by Members on both sides of the House, and given that, as servants of the House, they cannot come into the Chamber to defend their work, how can we put on the record that Members of Parliament of all political persuasions value and respect their work?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would not seek to comment on the merits or demerits of a particular report. Suffice it to say, however, that I think the House of Commons Library service is held in universal esteem. I have always had the highest regard for the professionalism, competence, intellect and analytical skill of those who work in the Library service. Indeed, when I was first elected I was told, before employing researchers, first to see and realise the benefits that the Library service can bring. I was told that 19 years ago. It was true then, and it is true now. I am sure that nobody would want to suggest otherwise.

Farm Produce (Labelling Requirements)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Anne Main: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the labelling of farm produce sold in the UK to include country of origin and whether produced in accordance with designated animal welfare standards; and for connected purposes.
Today I am arguing for more transparency—farm-to-fork traceability—to enable the British consumer to make a more informed decision about what they are buying. Currently we have a confusing mixture of voluntary standards bolted on to EU legislation, with some products offering greater clarity of origin and production standards than others. It took the Europe-wide scandal of horsemeat finding its way into our food chain to jolt the European Commission into action. That scandal was a big wake-up call for the meat industry EU-wide.
The UK is already implementing new EU rules on country-of-origin labelling for unprocessed pork, lamb and poultry. I stress that that meat is unprocessed, because there is a whole other confusion surrounding imported meat that is processed into, for example, sausages in the UK and then labelled as a British product. However, that is a can of worms for another day.
Although there are now better rules on labelling and the traceability of meat products, the same is not true for milk and milk used in dairy products, and that must change. Our British dairy farmers are having a tough time of it, and milk prices are very low. With Britain operating under current EU rules, we cannot unilaterally bring in mandatory country-of-origin labelling. To do that, we would need to get agreement from the Commission, but so far the Government have not been able to convince the Commission to agree, which is regrettable.
Currently the Commission favours only a voluntary code on dairy products. A May 2015 EU report covering dairy indicated that it was felt that introducing such a measure would prove costly and bureaucratic. However, our own Farming Minister has said:
“I do not accept the Commission’s argument that it would be too complicated and too difficult to do this on dairy products. It might on some dairy products, but on butter, on cheese, on some of the staple dairy products you could deliver country-of-origin labelling relatively inexpensively…The commission is very resistant to going this way, so we are not going anywhere fast on this agenda”.
Dr Judith Bryans, chief executive of Dairy UK, has said:
“There is obvious consumer demand for clearer information on the country of origin of food products as illustrated by the existing rules for fresh meat within the Food Information to Consumers Regulation…A mandatory labelling system would help the UK dairy industry showcase its products and reassure consumers on their provenance.”
There we have it: clear mandatory labelling is what our Government want. It is in the interests of British farmers and the British consumer.
The Government have said there is great potential for significant long-term growth in the UK dairy sector, with the global market expected to grow at more than  2% a year for the next 10 years. Globally, in or out of the EU, our dairy farmers should therefore have a bright future.
In its farm gate prices report in March 2016, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said:
“It is unacceptable that consumers cannot buy British in confidence and could be misled as to country of origin when they are buying food from their supermarket. It is essential that labelling on produce is improved.”
I wholly agree.
For consumers who care deeply about animal welfare, we also need clearer labelling covering animal-rearing processes. Consumers do care about how animals in the food chain are cared for during their short lives. There are specific EU requirements on the keeping of calves, pigs, laying hens and broilers. The EU banned conventional cramped cages for laying hens in 2012, and it specifically phased out the use of individual stalls for pregnant sows in 2013. Those appallingly stressful stalls keep pregnant sows caged, usually on concrete, so they cannot move about. Such stalls cut farmers’ costs, but they were banned for cruelty reasons in the UK in 1999. They were specifically banned in the rest of the EU from the start of 2013.
Shockingly, more than two years on from these stalls being banned on cruelty grounds, six EU countries are still officially non-compliant with their own key welfare standards. Such wilful non-compliance cuts costs for the farmers involved, but it perpetuates misery for animals. The consumer absolutely has a right to know that a cheap cut of pork on a supermarket shelf has been produced in banned conditions.
Dr Joyce D’Silva, ambassador for the campaign group Compassion in World Farming, has said she believes the countries failing to comply were France, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Finland and Slovenia. She has said:
“It is appalling that the European Commission has failed to enforce this law…The whole point of an EU-wide ban is to ensure it is a more level playing field”—
a level playing field on the cost of pork production and on animal welfare.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who co-sponsored the Bill with other hon. Members, and who is Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, accused the European Commission in October 2015 of “prevaricating” and of giving European farmers an “unfair advantage” by allowing them to flout an EU ban on sow stalls. That   unfair advantage is bad for not only the pig but pig farmers, because it has led to 60% of our pork being imported, undercutting our farmers.
If the British consumer wants to be sure that the pork on their plate is cruelty-free, clearer mandatory labelling is the answer. Currently there is only one EU-wide system of compulsory labelling on animal welfare, and that is for table eggs. The EU has been slow in obliging other member states to adopt higher welfare standards. Perhaps that is why the EU strategy does not plan to extend welfare labelling beyond eggs. If it did, it would certainly shame some key EU countries over their unacceptable animal farming practices. The Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation has said,
“As demand for livestock products continues to surge, particularly in developing countries, the importance of ethically sourced food becomes more important than ever as more animals are farmed.”
This country already has a voluntary scheme that demonstrates clear labelling and animal welfare—the Red Tractor scheme. It demonstrates that food is high-quality British produce and that it has been farmed, processed and packed in the UK. It is the largest food-assurance scheme in Britain. It ensures that food is traceable and safe to eat and that it has been produced responsibly.
Our farmers are doing the right thing, and they deserve our support. It is not right or fair that other European countries can dodge important animal welfare issues, hide anonymously behind inadequate labelling and at the same time undercut our farming industry. If British consumers were made aware of the lower welfare standard operating in many European countries, I believe they would choose to buy British and buy compassionately.
By bringing in the Bill, we will know where our milk has come from and where an animal was reared. Importantly, we will also know how well it was treated in its life and, potentially, even how it was slaughtered. By championing a robust, sustainable, compassionate British farming industry, we are delivering jobs and prosperity and ensuring our own food security. I believe that that is what the British public want, and I would like our Government to bring in a Bill to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Anne Main, Martin Vickers, Andrew Percy, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, William Wragg, Mr David Nuttall, Stephen McPartland, Bill Wiggin, Neil Parish and Mr Nigel Evans present the Bill.
Mrs Anne Main accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 161).

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 12 - Appointment of Financial Conduct authority chief executive

“In Schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the Financial Conduct Authority), after paragraph 2 insert—
2A (1) The term of office of a person appointed as chief executive under paragraph 2(2)(b) must not begin before—
(a) the person has, in connection with the appointment, appeared before the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, or
(b) (if earlier) the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the appointment is made.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the person is appointed as chief executive on an acting basis, pending a further appointment being made.
(3) The reference to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is a reference to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.
(4) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (3) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”—(Harriett Baldwin.)
This new clause provides that the term of office of a person appointed as chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (otherwise than on a temporary basis) must not begin before that person has appeared before the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons or, if earlier, three months from the date of his or her appointment.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Harriett Baldwin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 12, after paragraph 2A(1)(b) insert—
“(1A) If, before the term of office has begun, the Treasury Committee reports to the House that the appointment should not be confirmed, the Treasury shall not continue with the appointment unless the House of Commons resolves that the appointment should be confirmed.”
Amendment (b) to new clause 12,at end insert—
“In Schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in paragraph 3(1), at the end insert “, except in the case of the chief executive of the FCA, who shall be appointed for a reappointable term of five years”.”
New clause 1—Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority—
‘(1) Schedule 1ZA of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 2(2) insert—
“(2A) The Treasury shall not appoint a chief executive without the consent of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.”
(3) After paragraph 4(1) insert—
“(1A) But a chief executive appointed under paragraph 2(2)(b) is not to be removed from office without the consent of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.”
(4) After paragraph 27 insert—
“References to Treasury Committee
28 (1) Any reference in this Schedule to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is to be treated as a reference to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which those functions are exercisable.
(2) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (1) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.””
New clause 2—Composition of the Court of Directors of the Bank of England—
“In making nominations to the Court of Directors of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to the importance of ensuring a balanced representation from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.”
New clause 3—Change in title of the Bank of England—
“The Bank of England shall be known as the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and any reference in any enactment to the Bank of England shall be taken as a reference to the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
New clause 5—Sterling Central Bank—
“The Bank of England is renamed the Sterling Central Bank.”
This new clause would change the name of the Bank of England to reflect its position as the UK central bank and the UK’s shared currency.
New clause 6—Membership of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England—
“(1) Section 13 of the Bank of England Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection 2(c), add “of whom one each must be nominated by the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.”
This new clause seeks to ensure representation of the four nations of the United Kingdom on the Monetary Policy Committee.
New clause 7—Objectives of the Monetary Policy Committee—
“After subsection 11(a) of the Bank of England Act 1998 there is inserted—
“(b) maximum employment, and.””
This new clause would expand the mandated objectives of the Monetary Policy Committee to include maximum employment.
New clause 8—Bank of England Accountability and Devolved Legislatures—
“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the merits of ensuring that the members of the policy committees of the Bank of England, including the Governor, appear before the respective economy committees of the devolved legislatures of the UK at least once a year.”
New clause 13—Freedom of Information—
“(1) Schedule 1, Part VI to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry relating to the Bank of England, leave out all the words after “England.””
Amendment 6,in clause 9, page7,line19, at end insert—
‘(6A) The Comptroller may enquire into the Bank’s success in achieving its stated policy objectives but shall not enquire into the desirability of such objectives having been set.
(6B) The Comptroller shall submit reports arising from the exercise of his powers under subsection (6A) to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons (or any successor committee exercising the same or equivalent functions).
(6C) The Comptroller shall lay before Parliament, and publish, each report arising under subsection (6B) promptly unless, in the opinion of the Treasury Committee, publication of a particular report would be likely materially adversely to affect the stability or functioning of the UK’s financial or banking system.”
Amendment 7, in clause 11,page12,line2, at beginning insert
“Subject to section 7ZA(6A) of the Bank of England Act 1998,”
Government amendment 3.

Harriett Baldwin: I would like to start by emphasising that the Treasury Committee is an esteemed Committee of this House and provides exceptional scrutiny of the Government and their regulators. Through its programme of pre-commencement hearings, it questions appointees to several posts before they start work. After appointees have started, they can expect to appear regularly before the Committee, and the public can expect the Committee to hold appointees firmly to account.
The Government welcome that scrutiny of appointees—it is a critical democratic function. That is why we have tabled new clause 12 to ensure in statute that the Committee always has the chance to scrutinise a new Financial Conduct Authority chief executive before they start work.

Mark Field: Will this be setting a bit of a trend? For which other important posts—there will be a number of other important posts at not just regulators but other City institutions—does my hon. Friend think it would be appropriate for the Treasury Committee to have a similar approval process?

Harriett Baldwin: I am speaking very narrowly to new clause 12. I am sure the Treasury Committee and other Committees will look at the issue again. I expect it to be part of the ongoing discussions between Parliament and the Executive. However, I am speaking to the very narrow characteristics of new clause 12.
Since we tabled our new clause, there have been further discussions with the Chair of the Treasury Committee over its role in the appointment of FCA chief executives. I am pleased to announce that we have found a means of reinforcing its scrutiny role that goes further than the context of this Bill. Indeed, today the Chancellor has written to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, agreeing that the Government will make appointments to the role of chief executive of the FCA in such a way as to ensure that the Committee is able to hold a hearing before the appointment is formalised.

Helen Goodman: Is the letter in the Vote Office if it has already been penned?

Harriett Baldwin: The letter is in my binder and I would be happy to read it out, provided that the Chair of the Committee does not object. I will ensure that a copy is put in the House of Commons Library, if that has not already happened. I am sure that the Chair of the hon. Lady’s Committee will be more than happy to share it with her. Would she like me to read the letter out in full?

Helen Goodman: Read it out!

Harriett Baldwin: By popular demand, this is what the letter states:
“Dear Andrew,
During the passage of the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, we have considered the role of the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) in scrutinising the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
This scrutiny is important and welcome. I will therefore ensure that appointments to the Chief Executive of the FCA are made in such a way to ensure the TSC is able to hold a hearing, after the appointment is announced but before it is formalised. Should the TSC recommend”—
this is more exciting news—
“in its report that the appointment be put as a motion to the whole House, the government will make time for this motion and respect the decision of the House.
Additionally”—
it does not stop there—
“I will seek, in a future Bill, to make a change to the legislation governing appointments to the FCA CEO to make the appointee subject to a fixed, renewable 5-year term. This would not apply to Andrew Bailey, who I recently announced as the new head of the FCA, but would first apply to his successor.
I believe that these changes will reinforce the Treasury Committee’s important scrutiny role.”

John Martin McDonnell: It would be helpful if the Economic Secretary could assure the House that that future Bill will be introduced sooner rather than later.

Harriett Baldwin: I am sure that the shadow Chancellor welcomes Government new clause 12 and the news that we will carefully consider the earliest possible opportunity for doing that, following today’s debate.
As the letter states, should the Treasury Committee follow the pre-commencement hearing with a report recommending that the appointment be put as a motion to the whole House, the Government will make time for that motion and, should it result in a vote, they will respect the decision of the House. We will also seek an opportunity to alter the legislation governing appointments to the FCA chief executive officer, to make the appointee subject to a fixed, renewable, five-year term. I can confirm that Andrew Bailey, the new CEO of the FCA, has been appointed to a five-year term that can be renewed, so the agreed process will first apply to his successor. The agreement is the right way to reinforce the crucial scrutiny role of the Treasury Committee.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary, who is being extremely generous with her time. What she has said is extremely welcome and a significant step forward. Will she explain why the Chancellor thought it better not to insert it in the Bill, but to make the arrangement through an exchange of letters?

Harriett Baldwin: We tabled our new clause on Thursday and, as I have said, there have been further discussions with the Chair of the Treasury Committee. I am delighted to be able to announce the result of those discussions today.
I also want to take a moment to address the question of dismissals of the FCA chief executive. I can confirm that the Government do not have the power, except in very limited circumstances, to dismiss the chief executive of the FCA during his or her term of office. I refer the House to paragraph 4 of schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which applies to the chair and the external members, as well as to the CEO, and states:
“The Treasury may remove an appointed member from office…on the grounds of incapacity or serious misconduct, or…on the grounds that in all the circumstances the member’s financial or other interests are such as to have a material effect on the extent of the functions as member that it would be proper for the person to discharge.”
The lawyers are clear that the only reasons the Treasury can dismiss an FCA chief executive are incapacity, serious misconduct and conflicts of interest. I hope that offers the House considerable reassurance.

Mark Field: It is worth saying a little about what happened in relation to Martin Wheatley. Although he was not technically dismissed, his term was not renewed. The situation was straightforward. In July 2015, it was announced that his term would not be renewed in March 2016. As a result, he left his office six months early. I accept that that may have been a mutual decision between the Treasury and Mr Wheatley, but it certainly gave the impression, at least, that, even if it was not a fully fledged dismissal, it was a non-renewal, and, ultimately, the exit from office came six months before the end of a fixed term.

Harriett Baldwin: My right hon. Friend has stated the facts about the term of office to which Martin Wheatley was appointed and the fact that the Government chose not to renew it. It is appropriate to pay what I hope is a cross-party tribute to the excellent work of the acting chief executive, Tracey McDermott, who stepped into the role at that time. She has carried out the role for almost a full year in an absolutely exemplary fashion.
Unless there any further questions on the new clause, I am going to move on to the amendments relating to devolution. I am inviting interventions, but there are none.
The next set of amendments, which stand in the names of the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), force us to ask exactly who the Bank works for. The answer must be the entire United Kingdom. Indeed, that is emphasised in the Bank’s mission statement,
“to promote the good of the people of the United Kingdom by maintaining monetary and financial stability.”
To fulfil that mandate, the Bank of England goes to great lengths to ensure that it has a comprehensive understanding of the economic and financial situation across all corners of the United Kingdom. The Bank has a network of 12 agencies, which are located across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions  of England. Each year, those agents undertake some  5,500 company visits and participate in panel discussions with approximately a further 3,500 businesses. In that context, imposing a requirement to have regard to regional representation on the court is unnecessary. A comprehensive framework for regional information-gathering already exists.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the Economic Secretary inform me who the Welsh representative is, because I have absolutely no idea who represents Welsh interests at the Bank of England and I am Plaid Cymru’s Treasury spokesperson?

Harriett Baldwin: I will make sure that that person makes him or herself known to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest of speed. It is important to point out that the agents do not engage with us as politicians. The agent for the west midlands and Worcestershire is very engaged with my local businesses, but I as a politician have never had a meeting with them. That is how it should work.

George Kerevan: I realise that the Economic Secretary is trying to be helpful, but does she not recognise that there is a strategic difference between the process of information-gathering through the agents and that of policy-making through the bodies of the Bank itself? That is where we are asking for representation.

Harriett Baldwin: I will get to that point later in my remarks. As always, I seek to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will enjoy those remarks when I get to them.
We believe that it is unnecessary to impose the requirement in new clause 2 to have regard to regional representation on the court, which is effectively the board of directors of the Bank of England, because of the comprehensive framework for regional information gathering that already exists. In addition, if we found a candidate with the perfect profile to serve on the court, but we insisted on downgrading them because they lived in an over-represented part of the country, that would not be the best way to produce an effective court.
I have been clear that in setting both monetary and financial stability policy, the Bank must take into account economic conditions in, and the impact of policy decisions on, every part of the UK. Monetary and financial stability policy must be set on a UK-wide basis. None of the 65 million people whom this House represents would be well served if, for example, different capital requirements applied to banks in different parts of the UK. Of course, monetary policy must be consistent. It is completely impossible to set different interest rates in different regions, so monetary and financial stability are, rightly, reserved policy areas.
The men and women who make up the Bank’s policy committees must have their decisions scrutinised, but since policy must be set UK-wide, this Parliament must hold them to account. This Parliament holds power over reserved matters, which these issues rightly are, and the Members of this Parliament represent people from every part of the country on an equal basis. Likewise, Ministers, who are accountable to the House and who hold their positions with the support of a majority of the House of Commons, must be responsible  for making the external appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, each member of which is responsible for considering the impact of their policy decisions on all 65 million people in the UK.
We also return to the question of the Bank’s 300-year-old name. It is important to recognise the reputation associated with a name built up over such a long period. During that time, the Bank has come to be globally renowned as a strong, independent central bank. We should not underestimate the importance of that. International confidence in the Bank of England helps to support international confidence in our economy and currency.
I turn to the monetary framework. The Government amendment in this group is modest. The Bill reduces the minimum frequency of Monetary Policy Committee meetings from monthly to at least eight times in every calendar year, and our amendment adjusts the reporting requirements of the Monetary Policy Committee to match.

Tommy Sheppard: The Minister moved on very quickly from the matter of the name. I just want to clarify whether the Government have a view on changing the name of the Bank of England to reflect the fact that it is the Bank for all the nations of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the fact that in normal, everyday parlance it will, I am sure, still be referred to as the Bank of England, its long and proper title surely should reflect all the nations of the United Kingdom.

Harriett Baldwin: I respect and pay tribute to the fact that the Bank of England was founded by someone from Scotland, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that this is an historical anomaly. I would be the first to accept that the monetary policy of the Bank of England is set for the whole United Kingdom. That does not mean to say that we will accept the new clauses that would change the name of the Bank of England, because we think that its name has been well established over 300 years.

Mark Field: I think that the Treasury is right, in this instance, not to change the name. The Bank of England has a brand. I do not need to give a history lesson to the nationalist Members, but the Bank of England was founded in 1694, which was before the 1707 and 1800 Acts of Union that might—for two of the three other parts of the United Kingdom, at least—otherwise have had an impact on its initial name. Its brand is important, and I hope that those from the other parts of the United Kingdom will not feel as though their interests are being downgraded simply because they do not appear in the headline name, not least for the reasons that have been set out. It is important that we recognise that the Bank acts for the entirety of the United Kingdom, and that it therefore pays great attention to the voices of those in all parts of the United Kingdom, not just England.

Harriett Baldwin: Yes, and on that point I hope that the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for the united nature of our kingdom means that the Scottish National party has moved on from the discussions of last year in which it wanted to break up the United Kingdom. I hope that the party  will accept the settled will of the Scottish people to continue to benefit from monetary policy that applies right across the country.

Jonathan Edwards: Further to the points made by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the new clause tabled by my colleague the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) will address the issue that they spoke about. As a keen cricketer, I know that the official title of the governing body is the England and Wales Cricket Board, but it is named “England” for all promotional purposes. Even if we accept the well-intentioned new clause tabled by my colleague from the Scottish National party, the Bank of England will still be known, in promotional terms, as the Bank of England.

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me down the path of comparisons with sports teams, but I decline to be tempted. The Government amendment is modest: the Bill reduces the frequency of MPC meetings from monthly to at least eight times in every calendar year, and the amendment will simply adjust the reporting requirements of the MPC to match.
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, suggests that we give the MPC a second primary objective of maximising employment. We conducted a comprehensive review of the monetary policy framework in 2013 and concluded that a flexible inflation targeting framework offered the best approach. Employment is already explicitly part of the MPC’s objectives. Its secondary objective is
“to support the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government, including its objectives for growth and employment.”
The most recent MPC remit letter summarised the Government’s economic policy as being
“to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries”.

George Kerevan: I thank the Minister for her forbearance in giving way again. She is taking refuge in the Bank of England’s existing mandate, a mandate that all Members, on both sides of the House, know has long since become redundant. The inflation target has been dead in the water for years and years, because inflation is nowhere near 2% and is not likely to be for a long time. Implicit in the new clause is the fact that we are questing about for other policy measures to replace the 2% inflation target. Will the Minister address the question of what future targets the Bank of England should have to address the needs of a deflationary era, rather than the inflationary era of the last 20 years?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. There are many opportunities in Parliament, in the scrutiny of the Bank of England by the Committee of which he is a member, to ask those important questions. The Government choose to use the mechanism of the letter process and the remit. The hon. Gentleman and I are both old enough to know how inflation has changed over the years—[Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] I know; surely we are not. We should all welcome the significant lowering of inflation expectations, and we should all remember how important it is that we continue to ask the Bank of England to keep inflation under control, so  that we never return to the kinds of impoverishing inflationary policies that so harmed people—particularly the poorest and oldest in society—during the 1970s.
Price stability must have primacy, because we judge that having a single lever aimed primarily at a single objective is the best way to make sure that the inflation target is credible. That, in turn, anchors all-important inflation expectations and helps us to keep inflation under control. Our system has shown that it produces good labour market outcomes. Despite global uncertainty, we have record numbers of people in work, an unemployment rate that is at its lowest in a decade, and a claimant count that has not been lower for more than 40 years. Moreover, targeting low inflation ensures that hard-earned wages are not eroded by inflation.

Mark Field: I must confess that I entirely agree with what the Minister is saying about inflation. I, too, am old enough to remember what inflation was like, particularly in the 1970s. However, it seems to me that the Bank of England’s sole monetary policy lever is to say that we must keep the inflation rate down. Surely we must recognise that inflation has now been well below the 2% target for a long time. I accept that we should never believe that inflation, and all the distortions it makes in our economy, has been entirely vanquished, but should there be a different inflation target, or a different set of remits for the Bank of England, to recognise that it should pay attention to other aspects of the economy in its monetary policy?

Harriett Baldwin: My right hon. Friend, who is an extremely wise and knowledgeable person—I will not refer in any way to his age—highlights an important point. He also emphasises the behavioural characteristic of the recency effect. Inflation is well below the 2% target today, but only during the lifetime of the last Parliament it was above 5%. Even during the six years that I have been a Member, we have tested the parameters of the inflation target. I do not think there is any need for us to make any changes to that target this afternoon.
I will conclude by speaking briefly to amendments 6 and 7 and new clause 13. The first part of amendment 6 states:
“The Comptroller may enquire into the Bank’s success in achieving its stated policy objectives but shall not enquire into the desirability of such objectives having been set.”
The Bill, as drafted, will already have that exact effect.
The second part of amendment 6 directs how the Comptroller and Auditor General should submit his reports. Parliament has delegated to the Comptroller discretion over the content of National Audit Office reports and the timing of their publication, and it is important that this independent officer of Parliament is able to use his judgment on how Parliament and the public are best served. The National Audit Act 1983 provides that the Comptroller
“may report to the House of Commons the results of any examination”.
Once he has reported to the House, it is open to any Committee of this House to inquire into matters on which he has reported. There is an in-built incentive for prompt publication as it mitigates the risk of the report’s conclusions being overtaken by events.
Amendment 7 would disapply restrictions in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on the disclosure of specially protected information in relation to reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Information is specially protected under these rules if it is held by the Bank for the purposes of monetary policy, for financial operations supporting financial institutions in maintaining financial stability, or for private banking purposes. Similarly, new clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), would remove three corresponding exclusions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I hope I can persuade the House that each of the three categories of protected information is entirely sensible.
The first category applies to the Bank’s monetary policy functions. How we communicate monetary policy is extremely important. It moves markets in substantial ways and every detail of the published minutes is scrutinised for predictions of future changes. Managing disclosure while making sure information is presented in a timely way is vital. That is why the original legislation creating the Monetary Policy Committee in 1998 set out the full range of disclosure requirements, including publication of the minutes and of a quarterly inflation report. Since then, the Bank has implemented the recommendations of Governor Warsh’s review of MPC transparency. Through the Bill, we are supporting full implementation of the recommendations of that review.
The second exclusion applies to
“financial operations intended to support financial institutions for the purposes of maintaining stability”.
Hon. Members will understand that if the Bank has to extend emergency liquidity assistance, very careful communication is a critical element of preserving stability. Any covert assistance will be reported privately to the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees, while broader liquidity schemes for institutions, such as the special liquidity scheme and the discount window facility, may be announced to the markets.
Finally, the Bank’s very limited private banking services are excluded from FOI requests. We often forget that the Bank of England also provides private banking to customers. As I am sure hon. Members will agree, it would be entirely inappropriate to subject ordinary bank customer information to disclosure.

Richard Burgon: I rise to speak to amendments 6 and 7 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, but I first want to turn to new clause 1 and Government new clause 12 on the appointment of the FCA chief executive.
I came to the House ready to speak in support of new clause 1, which seeks to give the Treasury Committee a formal role in the appointment of the chief executive of the FCA. In my view, new clause 1 is better placed to guarantee the competence and independence of the regulator than the new clause in the name of the Chancellor, which in our original reading of it did too little to change the status quo. New clause 12 was tabled in response to the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). We had a similar debate in Committee on an amendment about the appointment process for the chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority.
Since 2008, Select Committees have routinely held pre-appointment hearings for a number of public appointments, and some candidates have not been approved. The coalition Government developed the scrutiny agenda when the Chancellor agreed in 2010 to the Treasury Committee having a power of veto over appointments to the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Public Accounts Committee has a veto over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee and the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and are then subject to a confirmation hearing by the Treasury Committee. The Treasury Committee has powers over the chair and board members of the Office for Budget Responsibility, an arrangement that the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee he would put in place
“because I want there to be absolutely no doubt that this is an independent body”.
The Minister will be aware that, when it examined the proposals for the future FCA in 2013, the Treasury Committee made a number of recommendations on the accountability of the new body to Parliament, including that the legislation should provide that the chief executive of the FCA be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Treasury Committee. I recall that the Treasury Committee was disappointed by the Government response, particularly in view of the deficiencies in the accountability mechanisms for the Financial Services Authority.
As we have heard, the view of the Treasury Committee was set out in the Treasury Committee Chair’s letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 January, following the appointment of the current PRA chief executive, Andrew Bailey, to be the next leader of the FCA. In that letter, the right hon. Gentleman set out his Committee’s view that it should have a veto over the appointment and dismissal of the chief executives of both the FCA and the PRA. Indeed, the letter said that the FCA’s chair, John Griffith-Jones, told the Committee, when he met its members on 20 January, that there was merit in that proposal.
In Committee, I flagged up this matter and said it would be helpful to know whether the Chancellor had shared his thinking on such calls to extend pre-appointment hearings and the power of veto to those two positions. Now we have had his reply. It was in the Minister’s ring binder. As she said, it was “exciting” to hear the contents of it, and we got a fantastic insight into the fireside exchanges within the Government. Labour Members believe that the Treasury Committee should have greater authority over the future of financial regulation in this country.
On Government new clause 12, it is unclear what would happen in the period between the appointment of the chief executive and him or her appearing before the Committee. Would they be left in limbo, or would they in fact be settling into their new post? Would we be disappointed—in practice, would it simply be business as usual, with the Treasury Committee not given the power that we all believe it deserves? We do not believe that simply requiring any new chief of the FCA to appear before the Committee within three months of appointment delivers anything particularly new. It is reasonable to expect that any new postholder would appear before the Committee within that timeframe in any event, whether or not that appearance was codified.
With regard to new clause 12, however, I am pleased to note the exciting news—the Minister herself has called it that, as have I—that by means of the Chancellor’s letter the Government have communicated that they accept the broad thrust of the proposals put forward by the Chair of the Treasury Committee. I also note and welcome the Minister’s commitment today to introduce the relevant legislation, in her own words, sooner rather than later. I politely suggest that the changes be introduced in the Finance Bill shortly—that is an opportunity not to be missed.
I turn to Labour’s amendments 6 and 7, containing measures that we have retabled after they were discussed in Committee, and new clause 13, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Each of those measures, in its own way, addresses the crucial issue of the need for transparency and openness in the Bank of England. The National Audit Office’s power to investigate the Bank has been subject to discussion at each stage of the Bill in both this House and the other place. The Comptroller and Auditor General was clearly concerned about proposals in the Bill that would have allowed the court of directors a veto over the new powers for the NAO. I am pleased to say that there has been clear progress on the issue as the Bill has proceeded through both Houses; in particular, the veto was removed in the other place. As hon. Members will recall, in response the Government proposed a memorandum of understanding between the Bank and the National Audit Office; I understand the draft of that has been welcomed by both sides.
Opposition amendments 6 and 7 seek to extend and clarify the powers of the comptroller to inquire into the Bank’s success in achieving its policy objectives. We believe that that does not encroach beyond the boundaries of questioning the merits of policy decisions, but would assist the National Audit Office in ascertaining whether the Bank is delivering value for money.

Mark Field: I have a brief question on amendment 6. Although I accept that transparency and openness are the spirit of the age and we cannot necessarily move entirely against that—[Laughter.] We do our level best some of the time. I am sure that the Treasury will be at the vanguard of this. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, at times of great difficulty, when there are issues about the stability or functioning of the UK’s financial banking system, it would be appropriate not just for the Treasury Committee but for the Treasury itself to have some say in suggesting when openness should not be fully fledged? The safeguards that he has put in place in the amendment refer only to the Treasury Committee; does he not see that there might be instances when Ministers rightly have concerns about issues of stability that should be protected from open transparency at least for a time, although there could then be a move to make the minutes and other things more open at some future point, once the particular threat had passed?

Richard Burgon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It may be that transparency is the spirit not just of the age but of the future—we shall see. I draw his attention to the wording in the amendment:
“The Comptroller shall submit reports arising from the exercise of his powers under subsection (6A)”.
It is not a completely open-book policy.
On new clause 2, which is in the name of the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), Labour sees merit in the proposal for wider geographical representation on the board. In Committee, we tabled an amendment making the case for amending the composition of the court to ensure that different stakeholders were represented, including having dedicated places for customers and practitioners.
Similarly, we support new clause 13 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. She has a long track record in campaigning for greater transparency in financial services, and her new clause sits well with our amendments, as it seeks to empower the National Audit Office further by making the case for greater powers for freedom of information requests.
I now turn to new clauses 3 and 5, put forward by the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru respectively. Both new clauses would change the name of the Bank of England. In fact the SNP was so keen to discuss its proposal that it tabled it twice. We discussed that measure in Committee and it is before us again. It seeks specifically to have the name of Scotland, as well as those of Wales and Northern Ireland, as part of the title of the Bank. The SNP has now been joined by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who has taken a different tack and removed all national names; his new clause would mean that the name of the Bank referred solely to the currency—for the avoidance of doubt, that is sterling, not Stirling. We were happy to support the SNP’s proposal in Committee, recognising as it does the unifying role of the Bank—that has been expressed again today—as one which services all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will support it again.
New clauses 6, 7 and 8 and Government amendment 3 have a number of merits. New clause 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, sets out a new mandated objective for the Monetary Policy Committee to include maximum employment. New clause 6 proposes the nomination of representatives on the MPC from the devolved authorities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and new clause 8 argues that the Bank should be more accountable for its decisions to those same bodies.
The Labour party has established a review into the mandate of the Monetary Policy Committee under former MPC member David Blanchflower. We have said previously that we will look at a wide range of ideas, including what can be learned from the US Federal Reserve. That will include considering the importance of growth, employment and earnings in the MPC’s deliberations. Indeed, on new clause 7, David Blanchflower has himself written in City A.M.—the favourite publication of the Labour Front-Bench team—that he will consider the issue of maximising employment in his review. He is also looking at the structure, size and, crucially, gender balance of the MPC, optimal policy rules, asymmetrical targeting and the relationship with fiscal policy, as well as the frequency of the MPC’s meetings.
Therefore, although we welcome the proposal for the Bank to report to the devolved authorities, we will not support the new clauses on the MPC today. We see merit in them as part of an ongoing debate, but look forward to considering and sharing the results of David Blanchflower’s review in due course. With that, I draw my comments on this group of measures to a conclusion.

Andrew Tyrie: First of all, that was a very good speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on covering quite a lot of ground in a good deal of detail—and with a sense of humour, which I enjoyed. I was also pleased that he got in one or two points—it saves me the trouble—about the OBR and its importance as a precedent for what we are discussing today.
I will also say—although only in a sentence, otherwise I am sure that I will get told to be quiet by you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that this is a very good Bill. In many respects, it implements a good number of the wider objectives for Bank of England scrutiny and accountability for which the Treasury Committee has for many years been pushing. I thank members of the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament and in this one who have pressed for these measures vigorously. It shows that things can be achieved if one persists.
I am grateful to the Minister for her assistance over a number of days, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who followed up a telephone conversation last night with an exchange of letters. We have now reached an agreement on how to proceed, so I will not need to press new clause 1 to a Division.
Following the exchange of letters, most of the objectives that we sought through new clause 1 are provided for, and it is worth going through the key points, which the Minister effectively clarified by reading out the Chancellor’s letter. First, appointments will be made in a way that ensures that the Treasury Committee can hold a hearing in good time. Before the appointment is formalised, the question of whether there is a pre-commencement or pre-appointment hearing is, in my view, a distinction without a difference. Secondly, if the Committee disagrees with the appointment, it will report that to the House, and if they choose, the Government must find time for a debate on the Treasury Committee’s report. That debate will be on a motion to accept the conclusion of the Committee. The Government will then have to vote it down. The Government further agree that they will respect the decision of the House once that vote has been taken.
Thirdly—this point has already been raised—at the earliest opportunity, the Government will amend legislation to ensure that future appointments of the chief executive of the FCA are made on a fixed renewable five-year term. I expect that legislative change to take place in the next parliamentary Session. I am not sure that the provision would satisfy the long title of a Finance Bill but, if it does, I would expect the Government to include it in that Bill. I also recognise that the Chancellor could not fully commit over the phone that the change would take place in the next Session, since he will have had no opportunity to secure an agreement on the legislative time from his Cabinet colleagues. I expect, however, that he will do that as soon as possible. It will be a pretty small, self-contained Bill. The fourth point, which has not been mentioned so far, is that it is the Chancellor’s clear view—I am not in any way misrepresenting him—that the arrangements that are being put in place should be the permanent method of appointment, rather than something that will just disappear with this Chancellor or, indeed, the helpful Minister at the Dispatch Box, however supportive she may be of the proposals.
Why has the Treasury Committee devoted so much time to this issue? I have a specific and a general answer to that. On the specifics, there have been widespread concerns that the independence of the FCA has been compromised by the circumstances of Martin Wheatley’s departure, and by other apparent interference in the FCA’s work by senior Treasury officials, and perhaps Ministers. We explored those circumstances through cross-examination in Committee and found no such evidence. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) got right to the point when he said that the appearance or perception of interference none the less remains. That perception makes it harder for regulators to do their job, so it had to be addressed. Bolstering the perceived independence of this key appointment, and ensuring that the individual cannot easily be removed by the Treasury, seemed crucial to the Committee.

Mark Field: For the record, I do not think there was any undue interference from the Treasury, and I am happy that Andrew Bailey is taking over—he will be a good chief executive. None the less, there was that perception within the square mile and we must hold that fairly close to our hearts.
May I also say how much I approve of the Treasury accepting the guts of new clauses 1 and 9? It is greatly to its credit that we have not had to go through the House of Lords, because it does a discourtesy to this House when such changes are made through amendments in the House of Lords, rather than being part and parcel of discussions in advance of Report.

Andrew Tyrie: One other issue is the apparent statutory protection against dismissal, which came into question as a result of Martin Wheatley’s departure. Whatever the reality, the current statutory protection appeared inadequate, which was perhaps because he was appointed only for a three-year term. Five years—a goodly and longer term—will provide more protection. To put it even more simply, the changes rectify in another way the risk of arbitrary dismissal. For example, if the Treasury Committee strongly supports keeping the incumbent after four and a half years, it can make that abundantly clear in a report and recommend to the House of Commons that any other candidate is voted down. So in practice, with the letter, we already have the protection that we wanted.
The FCA needs a strong and demonstrably independent chief executive, accountable to Parliament. It endured a difficult birth and struggled to emerge from the rubble of the failed FSA. Some of its best staff have been poached by the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank and the private sector, and it has been hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons, not least with the breach of its own listing rules, which wiped 20% off the share value of the life assurance sector. With what will amount to a requirement for parliamentary approval of future appointments or dismissals of the FCA chief executive, the incumbent will now be in a strong position to resist pressure from Ministers and officials, and their authority will be bolstered.
The fact that this is a non-statutory change—unlike new clause 1, which would have been in the Bill—does not perturb me a great deal. Any attempt by the current  or future Chancellor to circumvent these arrangements is likely to lead to a complete collapse of trust between the Treasury Committee and the Government, and I do not foresee that happening.

Mark Field: Does my right hon. Friend have some small concern that if a measure is not included in the Bill, no precedent will be set? To return to an earlier exchange that I tried to have with the Minister, that might give the Treasury licence to take this as a sui generis case, rather than recognising that the Treasury Committee should perhaps have a more important role in approving the appointments of a number of senior figures in the financial services firmament.

Andrew Tyrie: That argument can be turned on its head. One can argue that this sets a precedent that is more easily rolled out, without the need for statutory change, to other bodies. In the Treasury field, we now have a statutory double lock for the appointment and dismissal of the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was recently found to be of some use following controversy about alleged interference in the production of the forecast—again, we did not find any evidence of that, but the perception of it might have weakened the OBR. We have a requirement for a resolution of the House prior to the appointment of the chairman of the Office for National Statistics, and now we also have these arrangements. So we have a battery of different arrangements on which to draw.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving this great success for parliamentary scrutiny, and I suggest that it is better to proceed in a non-statutory way. Bringing statute into the proceedings of the House always presents longer term problems, and setting a non-statutory precedent has lots of advantages.

Andrew Tyrie: I always like listening to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Treasury Committee and, of course, a constitutional expert. It is certainly true in this place that a good deal of quasi-constitutional change, which is what we have here, tends to take place gradually and often due to the development of informal arrangements. I think that that is all to the good, which is what I think my hon. Friend is saying.

Helen Goodman: rose—

Andrew Tyrie: Everyone is trying to pile in, whereas I am trying to get to the end of my speech. I was almost there a minute ago, but I give way.

Helen Goodman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel the slightest hint of disappointment in the intervention by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) because it was surely a historic first that he signed a new clause to amend the British constitution?

Andrew Tyrie: Of course my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), as a great and learned constitutional expert, will explain this apparent contradiction to the House in, I hope, a lengthy disquisition in a few minutes’ time.
I really am trying to conclude, but I have just one more point. It is essential in a 21st-century democracy that appointees to an increasing number of quango positions—this was the general point I said I would  refer to earlier—should be forced to explain their actions before Parliament and also should feel accountable to Parliament. To achieve that, the means of their appointment and their protection from dismissal are relevant, and that is why a change such as this can offer us something.
Over decades, successive Governments have offloaded their responsibilities to quangos, leaving the public with the sense that nobody is ultimately democratically accountable for anything. I believe that accountability for decisions that were formerly taken directly by Ministers, but now sit with unelected appointees in quangos, needs thorough scrutiny and cross-examination, and that is what we have been trying to do in the Treasury Committee over the past few years.
The agreement with the Chancellor is a sizeable step in the right direction. Of course, in an ideal world, I would like access to the statute book to write exactly what, on behalf of the Treasury Committee, I feel should be on it. However, we live in the real world, and I am very happy with this exchange of letters and grateful to Ministers for their agreement. I shall not press new clause 1 to a Division today.

George Kerevan: I agree with the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) that there is a lot to be commended in the Bill, although some of the good things, as with new clause 12, were pushed on the Government. I also think that there are still some negative aspects to the Bill, which brings me to a conclusion—[Interruption.] As usual, it will be quite a long conclusion!
The Bill began as a tidying-up operation, which is why it was launched in the House of Lords. It was seen to be about just tidying up a few things, making a few additions and changes to the Financial Services Act 2012. As the Bill proceeded through its various stages, however, the more it became apparent that it exposed a whole series of issues in the financial regulatory system that were not fit for purpose.
We have convinced ourselves—or at least the Government have convinced themselves—that bar a little tidying up, all has been done to resolve the crisis of 2007, but that is not true. What we discovered time and again as the Bill proceeded were issues with the operation of the Bank of England and issues with the functioning of the regulatory bodies and how fit for purpose they are. Furthermore, new issues have emerged only in the last few weeks regarding tax havens. All those problems have appeared. I do not see this Bill putting the problems away and putting the issues to bed. Rather, we are seeing the start of a whole series of pieces of legislation coming into force until we get it right. Far from it being a tidying-up operation, we have started something new.
I am speaking to new clauses 2 and 3, which stand in my name and those of my SNP colleagues. I believe they get to the nub of the issues we are facing as a result of what has been uncovered. In the last 20 years, and more particularly in the last 10, the Bank of England has acquired an extraordinary range of new powers. I do not mean just forecasting or supervising powers over banks, because fundamental policy levers for running the whole economy have been transferred from this House and the Executive to the Bank of England itself. This began with the transfer of powers over interest  rates to the Bank of England in 1997, along with the power to set the exchange rates, which no one seemed to notice at the time. This gave the Bank de facto control over our external sector. More recently, of course, with quantitative easing, the Bank has forced interest rates down to the zero band. If monetary policy cannot be manipulated, what else can be done? Gradually, the Bank has been given powers over large swathes of fiscal policy.
Nowadays, the Bank of England even operates our housing policy, as housing determines the whole direction of economic growth. In recent weeks, the Bank has been deciding between buy for let or buy for homeowners. Micro-decisions have been transferred, and my worry is that we have crossed a line of accountability with respect to the Bank of England. This is not a criticism of individuals working for it or indeed of the Governor of the Bank of England, for whom I have high regard. Gradually, however, we have allowed it to take over from this House far too much of the operational policy that directs the economy.
That is why I am happy to support new clause 12 as a step forward in beginning to redress the balance of accountability. New clause 12 and the Government’s acceptance of the general line of march from the Treasury Select Committee means that we are beginning to move to the point where key members of the regulatory regime can be confirmed in their appointments by this House.
We now have two precedents in that direction, with the Treasury Committee as a servant of the House confirming the appointment of the director of the Office for Budget Responsibility and now the head of the Financial Conduct Authority. That is the line of march, but I want to put on record, however, that SNP Members view this as a down payment. We are moving in a direction where the Governor of the Bank of England and all the key members of the regulatory agencies have to be confirmed by this House. I know that will take a long time and that there is always a struggle—sometimes gentle, sometimes not—between the Executive and the House over who has the real say. What we are seeing is a move towards more democratic accountability being held by the House, which I welcome.
Let me move on briefly to new clause 2, which takes this process a little further. Given the policy direction and powers that now lie with the Bank of England, we have to make sure that its committees and, above all, its ruling court of directors are democratically accountable. That is why we tabled this simple new clause, stating:
“In making nominations to the Court of Directors of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to the importance of ensuring a balanced representation from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.”
That new clause was carefully written. There is no suggestion that the court should be a federal body. Our suggestion is that in the balance of its make-up, there should be representation for the whole nation. Rightly or wrongly—much more rightly than wrongly in my opinion—there is a perception that the City of London and its major banks and financial institutions have historically had too big a sway over the court and the Bank.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Does he agree that it must be significant that the economic performance of the peripheral areas of these nations is also peripheral?

George Kerevan: I could not agree more. In fact, if we look at the long history of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, the north of England and Northern Ireland—we see that they have suffered a deflationary cycle since the second world war, because from 1945 onwards, by and large, interest rates were set to control inflation that was triggered by the City of London and over-lending by the City of London. As a result, the north-south divide became a deflationary line, with the nations of the north, and the regions of the north of England, suffering high interest rates. Although those rates were not germane to their economic problems, for most of the post-war period UK interest rates have, on average, been set at a higher level than those in the rest of Europe, simply in order to control and curb over-lending by the City of London, which has resulted in deflation in the industrial regions.
I consider that that might have been mitigated to some extent if there had been broader representation of the nations and their industries on the leading bodies of the Bank of England, and, although I know that the Executive will challenge my proposal, I think we need to move in that direction. I remind Members that the court of directors is not the institution of the Bank that actually makes monetary or fiscal policy. It has oversight over the whole of the Bank’s operations, in the sense of giving value for money, and, above all, ensuring that there is no group-think between the different committees that make operational policy. I therefore think that, at that level, we need to begin the process. At that level, we need wider representation on the court.
Surprisingly—and I raised this in Committee—such representation already exists to a small degree. Since world war 2, traditionally, there has always been a trade union representative on the court of the Bank of England, and there still is, to this day. Even the Government—indeed, successive Governments—have recognised that there can be wider representation on the court, including wider social representation. However, when I asked Ministers whether, if they were rejecting the notion of a court with a wider representation of the economy and the community, they were going to remove trade union representation, there was a deafening silence, and that is why I am putting the question again today. Those who accept the principle that there should be trade union representation—and there should—ought to widen that principle, and that is what I am asking for now.
We tabled the new clause carefully in order not to suggest that the court should be federal or too detailed, with someone representing this and someone else representing that, but simply to suggest that a balance was needed. As anyone who has sat on the board of a company will know, the first thing that one must do when creating a board is ensure that there is some representation of different skills and different interests, so that the board’s members can act as a collective. My point is that the court, and to some extent, I think, the new policy committees of the Bank of England, do not act as collectives. They are in danger of adopting silo thinking, and, ultimately—because of the power that we have given to the Bank of England—they are also in danger of beginning to act with the kind of hubris that central banks begin to wield when they are given too much power. They begin to think that they know everything when they do not. We need democratic accountability  in the Bank of England, and we need it not in the sense in which the Bank understands it, but in the sense in which the nation, and the nations of the UK, understand it. That is why I will press the new clause to a vote later on.
We have made some progress with the Bill. I fear that that progress has consisted mostly of discovering more about what we need to do to improve the regulatory structures of the economy, but at least more is out in the open, and the debate is more open. Where do we go next? Where we go next is towards more accountability. The Bill makes a down payment on that accountability, but it does not finally deliver it. That is where we go next.

Helen Goodman: Obviously, in the new landscape of the City, the head of the Financial Conduct Authority holds an extremely important post, and the question of who fills that post is therefore vital. I am extremely pleased about the change that was agreed this afternoon and announced by the Minister at the Dispatch Box. It opens up the process, it gives the Treasury Committee a proper role, and it will, we hope, reinforce the independence of the person concerned.
Another person with considerable independence is, of course, the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am pleased, too, that we have moved away from the idea that the court should decide which part of the Bank’s homework the Comptroller and Auditor General should be allowed to mark. There is clearly a parallel with the CAG’s role in respect of the BBC. On Second Reading, we asked Treasury Ministers to publish the memorandum of understanding. They have now published it, and it is an extremely useful document, which sets out, in advance, an agreed framework for the CAG’s remit. That will prevent ad hockery, and will also prevent both the reality and the possible perception of political interference, or inappropriate avoidance of scrutiny of certain areas of the Bank’s work.
New clause 13, which stands in my name, would make the Bank of England subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It seems to me that, as the Bank is a public authority which is fulfilling public policy purposes, the case for covering it does not really need to be made; it is the case against its being covered that needs to be made. The Minister made some important points about why she was not minded to accept the new clause, and I want to respond to what she said. She singled out three areas in particular: monetary policy, financial operations, and private banking.
I am not entirely sure of all the details of the 2000 Act, but we all know that local authorities are FOI-able. Equally, we all know that when we submit freedom of information requests to local authorities, we are not able to see the personal reports on individual members of staff in those authorities. The Act does not give access to that kind of personal information, and I should have thought that the same approach would exempt the private banking work of the Bank of England.
As for monetary policy and financial operations, I do not believe that my new clause would run into those parts of the Bank’s work, because they would still be protected by section 29(1) of the Act. That section states:
“Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice…the economic interests  of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom, or…the financial interests of any administration in the United Kingdom, as defined”,
blah blah blah. I should have thought that as long as we were not amending section 29, we would be able to protect the areas about which the Minister was particularly concerned.
I was alerted to this matter by a letter from the Governor, which the Minister herself waved at us in the Chamber last June, about the sale of shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland. I am sure that the Minister remembers the occasion well. In his letter, the Governor said that
“it is in the public interest for the government to begin now to return RBS to private ownership”.
Writing that letter was not part of the Governor’s role on monetary policy, financial policy or prudential policy; it was an intervention in Government policy at the Chancellor’s request on the issue of a share sale.
When the Governor appeared before the Treasury Committee, I asked him whether he would share the analysis that underlay the letter that he had written. He refused point blank to do so. I am not going to read out the full exchange that I had with the Governor on that occasion, because I went into the matter in detail on Second Reading and it has now been placed on the record twice. However, I really feel that in refusing to provide that underlying analysis, the Governor is evading public scrutiny of what is a perfectly proper matter for the public to understand.
The Governor also said in his letter that
“a phased return of RBS to private ownership would promote financial stability, a more competitive banking sector, and the interests of the wider economy.”
In fact, none of that is true. It will not promote a more competitive banking sector. We are hoping that the Comptroller and Auditor General will, in his separate audit of the RBS share sale, secure that analysis. However, there should be a more straightforward way of dealing with this. The share sale is a particular issue and the Comptroller and Auditor General always looks into share sales, so we might get at the truth on this one occasion, but I am sure that there will be other similar loopholes.
The topicality of seeing this analysis was further underlined last week by the interview in the Financial Times given by Sir Nicholas Macpherson on the occasion of his retirement from the Treasury, in which he described the sale of more RBS shares as “tricky”. He went on to say that there was a judgment to be made over whether to sell further shares below the 2008 purchase price. These are not straightforward matters; they do not fall within the normal remit of the Bank of England and they are of public policy significance. They are but one example of why it is appropriate for the Bank of England to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Jonathan Edwards: I rise to speak to new clauses 5 to 8 in this group, which are in my name. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will be as brief as possible, because I am desperate to get to the third grouping so that we can have a vote on those amendments.
My new clauses aim to achieve two things: first, to secure justice for my country in the formulation of monetary policy; secondly, to help monetary policy  formulation better to reflect the fiscal reality of the evolving UK. They are probing amendments, and I wish to draw the Government’s attention to them again as these are important points that the Government should go away and look at before possibly coming back with their own proposals, given the relatively light legislative programme before the House these days. I was glad to hear that Labour was holding a review into these issues, and I look forward to reading its findings, although it would have been handy if the review had been prepared in advance. We could then have discussed those issues in this debate on the legislation.
The first of my new clauses proposes a change to the name of the central bank. We in Plaid Cymru believe that the Bank of England’s name should be changed. It is the UK’s central bank, and it is time that was reflected to a greater degree, not only in its name but in its structures and practices. It is an undoubtedly contentious issue for me as a proud Welshman that the central bank that decides monetary policy in Wales is named after another country. The Bank of England was created in 1694, before the present British state was constructed. Wales was annexed in 1536, Scotland in 1707 and Ireland in 1801. The central bank was therefore created to serve a political entity that consisted only of Wales and England. I suppose the fact that Wales was omitted from its title reflects the inferior status that my country enjoyed in 1694.
Many of those present will have heard my schoolboy hero Sir Ian Botham on “The Daily Politics” yesterday, saying of the EU referendum:
“England is an island and we should be proud”.
I was going to say “If only”, but I thought I might get into trouble. That dubious geographical knowledge reflects an error continually suffered by the other nations of the UK at the hands of those who use “England” to mean a larger entity. It is an injustice that persists in cricket, Wales being denied a national team in its own right. Similarly, the other nations of the UK are denied recognition when it comes to the central bank. If the British state is a partnership of equals, all its institutions must reflect that reality, including perhaps the most important institution underpinning its financial system: the central bank.
My suggestion is that our central bank be called the “Sterling Central Bank”. This would reflect the fiscal and political reality we live in, and it would show that those in this place genuinely believe in the respect agenda and a partnership of equals. I notice that the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) has tabled a similar amendment to the same effect, and I will of course vote in favour of it, if he is minded to press it to a Division.
New clause 6, in my name, seeks to ensure representation of the four nations of the United Kingdom on the Monetary Policy Committee. Measures relating to major fiscal levers flow from the Treasury in London to the devolved countries—measures relating to corporation tax being devolved in its entirety to Northern Ireland, to full income tax devolution to Scotland, and to partial income tax devolution to Wales. Even though I believe that we should have a symmetric devolution of powers, the trajectory is clear none the less.
Fiscal responsibility, when combined with a genuine no-detriment fiscal framework, increases the political accountability of the devolved Governments to their respective electorates and, critically, incentivises those Governments to boost economic performance in order to invest in public services. The co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policy is vital in any economic policy. Obviously the central bank is independent, but there is undoubtedly co-ordination with the Treasury, as would be expected. Similar protocols and links need to be developed with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Exchequers. The national Parliaments should nominate a member to serve on the MPC to ensure that those involved in interest rate setting have an understanding of economic conditions and events in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

George Kerevan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States, the central bank is called the Federal Reserve for the very simple reason that it is appointed federally, and the interest rate setting committee is a federal committee? The principle is therefore well established in other jurisdictions.

Jonathan Edwards: I fully agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I also agree with the points he made earlier about the north-south divide and the impact that monetary policy has had on that reality. It is no surprise that the UK is the most grotesquely unequal state in the EU in terms of geographical wealth, and one of the main reasons for that is that for far too long monetary policy has been determined in the interests of a very small part of it—namely, the square mile just down the Thames.
All current MPC members are either Bank staff or in one of the four positions nominated by the Treasury. Fittingly, there are four countries in the UK, which makes the MPC ripe for modification to ensure that all nations are represented when it comes to the highly important task of deciding interest rates. I am also interested in the emerging debate on changing the MPC’s remit with regard to setting interest rates. New clause 7 seeks to expand the mandated objectives of the MPC to include maximum employment. It is already specifically charged with keeping to an inflation target of 2%. Other central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve, to which reference was made in my exchange with the hon. Member for East Lothian, have a dual mandate that goes beyond inflation. In 1977, the US Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act 1913 and mandated the Federal Reserve to target long-term moderate interest rates and, critically, maximum employment. I heard with interest the Minister’s point that the Bank does consider the Government’s employment target, but there is a difference between that and a mandate for maximum or full employment.
New clause 8 seeks to improve the Bank’s accountability to Wales and the other devolved Governments. The British state is changing rapidly as powers and responsibility flow from Westminster to the devolved Administrations, although the pace is perhaps not as quick as those like me would want. We are not privy to the meetings between Treasury Ministers and the Governor and his senior team, but we can safely assume that they are frequent. On top of that, the Governor and his team meet the Treasury Committee at least five times a year.  As I mentioned a moment ago, fiscal powers already exist in the devolved nations, with more planned, so I hope that the Bank and the Treasury agree that it is in their interests to strengthen relations with the devolved Governments and Parliaments. I am not aware of any formal structures for meetings between the Governor and Ministers of the devolved Governments, or for scrutiny of the Bank by the devolved Parliaments. In the interest of mutual respect, those structures need to be formalised.

Roger Mullin: I thought that I would come along to listen this afternoon, but I was stung into action by the Minister’s peroration, in particular her comments on new clauses 2 and 3.

Tommy Sheppard: Does my hon. Friend share my sense of regret and bewilderment that the Government can so casually dismiss the proposal to amend the long name of the Bank of England? Does he agree that it is disingenuous of the Conservative Government to talk about a respect agenda that embraces the contributions of all the United Kingdom’s nations when they refuse to recognise those contributions at the first opportunity, and state that only England should be in the name of this most significant institution?

Roger Mullin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is particularly apposite that he makes that point now, because as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) pointed out, the Bank of England is a very different kind of bank from a few short years ago. It has a much more political role than it did, and it makes decisions that have a wider impact than before. Its name surely now needs to reflect the impact of its decision making.
The second reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is entirely correct is because of the changed political climate in the UK. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made similar points about the need to recognise the role of Wales. This is important. It is not a flimsy point; it is fundamental for people who want to see an important central institution that has proper regard for all the nations that it seeks to serve. A short while ago, I was looking at a list of the court of directors of the Bank of England. Looking at the representation provided by its 11 members, one would be inclined to rename it “the Bank of the City of London”, because there is little proper representation for the UK’s nations and regions.
I enjoyed the analogy the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made with cricket. It is not a subject in which I can claim particular expertise. [Interruption.] Or interest? No, I have some interest in it. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there is the England and Wales Cricket Board. One Mike Denness, born not far from where I was born in Scotland, was the captain of the English cricket team some years ago; again, I am showing my vintage.
We must have proper regard to all the nations represented in the United Kingdom. I was stung by the Minister’s comment that the Bank of England represents the whole of the United Kingdom, the implication being that it had always done so, but I do not think that is at all true, in terms of its policy making. The hon. Member  for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian made the telling point that the Bank has had undue regard for one part of the UK. Many commentators would say that the interest rate setting policy of the Bank of England pre-2008 paid undue regard to the City of London and surrounding areas, and too little regard to the north of England, the Scottish economy, the Northern Ireland economy and the like.
That leads me nicely on to new clause 2 and why there should be representation for the nations and regions that make up the UK on the Bank of England’s court of directors. A short time ago, I had a quick look on the internet to see who these esteemed figures are, and unless I am proven to be incorrect—or the internet is incorrect—one is also a non-executive director of the Financial Conduct Authority. Such interlocking directorships do not serve economic policy and the financial sector well. Do we have such a tiny pool of appointable people that bodies with such an important relationship to one another have to be represented by the same directors? That is not a sign of strength in our appointing arrangements, but a position of extreme weakness.
Why are these things important? My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian mentioned a word that has cropped up many times in Committee discussions: he talked about the importance of avoiding group-think. Many studies show it to have been part and parcel of the flawed decision making that contributed to the crash in 2008. If we want to avoid group-think, we need people who are willing to think differently and to ask the critical questions, and we need a chairman willing to seek out those with alternative views. I do not see that happening today.
Some years ago, I was sitting within the confines of a company that was considering a large proposal. A paper was presented, and the chairman quickly went around all the directors asking for their thoughts. Every single person around the table immediately said, “I think this is a really great paper and we should go with its suggestion.” The chairman, being extraordinarily wise, said, “I am extremely uncomfortable that we have an immediate consensus, so I am going to postpone this discussion until our next meeting. I want you to go away and generate some alternative, critical views.” That is the wise course of action; it is about not being sucked into group-think. For all those reasons, new clause 2 deserves the support of all those who do not want to replicate the mistakes of the past.

Phil Boswell: Like many others in the Chamber and, as is clear, in the Treasury Committee, I welcome the progress made on the Bill but have serious concerns about it  and, in particular, its role in the systematic gradual compromising of the independence of the two key regulators, the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Further to the Minister’s announcements in her opening remarks, which were touched on by many in this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), I welcome the Government’s determination that more oversight is needed on the appointment of the chief executive of the FCA by the Chancellor. However, I have concerns about the  new procedures, as announced. Until this legislation is in place, this is very much open for debate and I sincerely hope we will debate it thoroughly, in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin).
Another consideration is this: if the Treasury Committee recommends the appointment to be put forward as a motion to the House, the Government could simply whip votes to approve the Chancellor’s appointment. Select Committees provide substantially more apolitical deliberation of key specialised issues. For that reason, a direct Treasury Committee veto of the appointment needs to be considered.
Issues around Treasury Committee approval are even more pertinent given the controversy surrounding the appointment of the newest chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, Andrew Bailey, which was touched on by the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). Before his appointment, Mr Bailey was the deputy governor of the Prudential Regulation Authority. Mr Bailey’s move between the two regulators, at the recommendation of the Chancellor, raises questions over whether a revolving door policy may exist. As many in this Chamber learnt in the wake of the 2007-08 financial crisis, separation of Church and state is of paramount importance when it comes to regulation of the banks. I fear that the current Conservative Government are ignoring that critical point.
One may wonder about the motivation of the appointment of Mr Bailey as chief executive of the FCA, given that his predecessor, Martin Wheatley, was allegedly forced out of the job by the Chancellor for reportedly being perceived as too tough on financial institutions. A lighter-touch approach to regulation could mean that selling Government shares in Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be, shall we suggest, less troublesome for the Chancellor, particularly given the recent capping on losses from the mis-selling of the pay protection scandal.
As I have previously said in this Chamber, the Chancellor stated in the 2016 Budget that he expects the Government to be able to sell their share in RBS for £25 billion, despite the fact that the bank arranged £9.3 billion in high-yield energy loans between 2011 and 2014 alone and the fact that its share price currently stands at roughly half of what was paid for it by the taxpayer in 2008. Clearly, the Chancellor faces serious challenges.
Two clauses in the Bill as outlined are particularly detrimental to the maintenance of the independence of regulators from Government influence, which is well covered by Members in this House. In part 2, clause 18 states that the Treasury is required to make recommendations for the FCA regarding economic policy as it pertains to the advancement of the objectives of the regulator at least once per year. Similarly, in part 1, clause 13 states that the Treasury can at any time—although it is required to do so at least once per year—make recommendations to the Prudential Regulation Committee regarding economic policy as it pertains to the objective of the PRA, which is the maintenance of stability within the financial sector.
Although those recommendations made by the Treasury to the regulators are not binding, it is clear that they increase the level of political involvement in the function  of the regulators, which at their inception were intended to be independent of political influence. Given recent speculation that the FCA bowed to political pressure when it abandoned a probe into banking culture in the UK at the end of 2015, these two clauses, and the greater political influence on the independent regulators they entail, are concerning to say the least. In particular, the requirement in clause 13 that the Treasury make recommendations at least once a year to the PRC creates a greater onus of responsibility on the Treasury to remain aware of systemic risks in the financial system. I fear that, given the track record of this Government, they may well be asleep at the wheel when it comes to management of systemic risk.
As I have mentioned previously in this Chamber, during the debate on the 2016 Budget, this UK Government have thus far failed to address a source of substantial systemic risk inherent in the financial system and the wider economy—that of leveraged lending to the oil and gas sector by British banks and US banks active in the UK market, and the slice and dice repackaging of these loans into derivative products, such as collateralised loan obligations, which are then sold to investors.
Numerous publications have warned that, with the stagnating price of oil at the moment, that structure poses serious risk, with the Financial Times reporting in December 2014 that
“there is a stark parallel with the US property market collapse that heralded the start of the 2008 global financial crisis and upended banks along the way.”
There are already signs that the first dominoes may be falling, as default rates on these high-yield loans are rising at a startling rate. Wells Fargo announced just this month that 57% of the loans in its energy portfolio were categorised as at risk of default. As Wells’ energy exposure stands at $42 billion, $24 billion, based on that figure, is at risk of default. UBS analysts have since put a sell notice on Wells’ stock.
Notably, it is reported by Lynn Adler at Reuters that in the United States the Federal Reserve has stepped up its review into lending which could lead to systemic risk, due to concerns about leveraged lending in the oil and gas sector. The systemic risk involved in such lending has been ignored by the Conservative Government here, however.
Political influence on the regulators was a key factor, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath earlier, in the failure of the regime to protect the financial sector and the wider economy from the systemic risk that led to the 2007-08 financial crisis. The Government have already demonstrated that they are unable even to acknowledge systemic risks that are apparent to so many in the industry today.
In a final point on the composition of the court of directors of the Bank of England, if the Government truly believe in one nation Conservatism, new clause 2, as tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, should be incorporated into the Bill. Finally, the Bill, as outlined, has serious potential to weaken the UK regulatory regime and compromise the independence of the regulators, bringing us back to a system wherein banks are seen as too big to fail—otherwise known as business as usual.

Harriett Baldwin: In responding to the debate, I will perhaps leave aside the comments of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell),  as I do not recall him participating in the debates on Second Reading, in Committee or earlier today, and his speech did not reflect the full view of other parties in this House that the Bill is a very good Bill, in the words of the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
I want to respond to some of the points raised in the debate and, in particular, to put on record how pleased I am that everyone welcomes Government new clause 12, which is supplemented by the text of the letter from the Chancellor to the Chair of the Treasury Committee that was sent earlier today and that I read out in my opening remarks. This has been an important opportunity to put on record how our amendment recognises the important scrutiny role of the Treasury Committee.
I would also put on record the important role of this House in scrutinising the Executive. This is another opportunity for us to emphasise the importance—the necessity, even—of preserving the independence of the FCA chief executive’s operational role, apart from Government. Our amendment reaffirms that commitment to continued independence of the FCA. It is vital consumers and firms know that regulatory decisions are being taken in an objective and impartial way. The FCA is an operationally independent regulator and must carry out its functions in line with the framework of objectives and duties established in statute and the independence of that chief executive is protected by statute, with clear provisions requiring the terms of appointment to be such that the appointee is not subject to direction by the Treasury or any other person.
Throughout their appointment, the FCA chief executive is scrutinised on an ongoing basis to ensure their continued independence. It was notable that in the course of the debate nobody could point out anything as regards the allegations made in the press about operational interference. I look forward to seeing the Treasury Committee’s report, because I know that it has carried out a thorough investigation into the matter.
Our new clause ensures that the Treasury Committee will always have time to scrutinise an appointee before they get their feet under the desk. I have also put it on the record that the legislation is very clear that once they are appointed the Government absolutely cannot dismiss an FCA CEO except in the limited circumstances set out in statute. I will not read out paragraph 4 of schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 again, but I referred to it in my opening remarks and reiterate that it applies not only to the CEO but to the chair and the external members.
We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) about his reaction and his decision to withdraw his new clause 1. He asked whether he could expect legislation in the next Session outlining the five-year term. As he knows, he has our commitment to find an early opportunity to put that into legislation. He is aware of the strictures that exist in relation to writing round and getting Cabinet agreement, but he has that commitment now from the Dispatch Box. He asked whether the legislation is permanent—a good question. It is possible that legislation becomes permanent, but it is also possible for a future Government, a future House of Commons and a future Treasury Committee to change legislation.

Andrew Tyrie: I am grateful to the Minister for what she says. The clarification that I seek relates not to legislation, which stands or falls like any legislation, but to the  arrangement. Is it intended that the arrangement between the Treasury Committee and the Chancellor, put in place in the exchange of letters today, will be permanent?

Harriett Baldwin: The Chancellor has many powers, but not necessarily the power to ensure permanence, which is a very long time. I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is the Chancellor’s intention that that remain the case for the length of time that he is able to exert power and influence over the matter. I hope that answers the question in the spirit in which it is asked.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked me to confirm that the NAO can look at the Bank’s success in meeting its objectives, but not necessarily at the desirability of those objectives. I have already said that that is exactly what the Bill achieves. The arrangements set out in the Bill have been agreed by both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Governor, and the terms of reference have been made available to the House. The CAG is content that the scope of his powers is appropriate and the Bank is content that they do not go too far.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bank should have practitioner representation. The Prudential Regulation Authority has a practitioner panel, which ensures that the interests of those who must put the PRA’s rules into practice are communicated to the PRA. That panel includes representatives of banks, insurers, building societies and credit unions, among whom the hon. Gentleman’s new favourite publication, City A.M., is widely read. Consumers also have an input through the FCA consumer panel, which has a statutory right to make representations to the PRA.
Speaking to her amendment, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked about the Bank of England and the extent to which it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is thanks to this Bill that the Bank is subject to the FOI Act. There are three specific limited exclusions from the Act as it applies to the Bank and, as I explained earlier, those are entirely sensible. The Bank of England is not alone in having particular elements of its work carved out from the Act. Other organisations to which specific exclusions apply include the Verderers of the New Forest, S4C in Wales, the Competition Commission and the BBC.
On the hon. Lady’s question about the Governor’s analysis supporting selling RBS shares at prices substantially above the price at which the shares are trading today, the Governor has explained that his analysis is based on commercially confidential information obtained as part of the PRA’s supervisory responsibilities. In the Freedom of Information Act there is, rightly, a standard exemption for commercial interests.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) said that there was a lot to be commended in the Bill. He asked about the range of expertise and perspectives on the court. He raised an interesting philosophical question, which is that in the past the court has been a much larger organisation, with 19 members—unwieldy, in the Treasury Committee’s view—but that it should represent the views of the entire UK. All members of the court should consider the whole UK, rather than acting as a representative of a particular part. He seems to have forgotten our exchange in Committee, when we talked about the trade union representation of the court  and I assured him that we have said nothing during the passage of the Bill that would change the post-war reality.
Each of the committees of the Bank of England will have a strong external representation, and no external member will be able to serve on more than one of the policy committees at the same time. That answers some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) about group-think. By legislating for clear decision-making procedures for each of the committees and providing that the statutory duties and responsibilities granted to them can be exercised in no other way, we empower the varied perspectives of the external members on each. All that adds up to a set of protections for external input and oversight that mitigate the risk of just one view emerging from the court or any of the Bank’s committees.
In answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), if he wants to get in touch himself—I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so—the Bank’s regional representatives in Wales are Agent Steve Hicks and Deputy Agent Ian Derrick.

Jonathan Edwards: The Minister will have heard today the heartfelt concerns of representatives from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the accountability of the central bank to the devolved Parliaments and Governments. Will she at least commit to a Treasury report on that, or will she request the Bank of England to produce a report on how it aims to improve its financial accountability and its relationship with the devolved Parliaments and Governments?

Harriett Baldwin: I think that there are a range of different ways in which that can happen, particularly now that the Treasury Committee in this House has a member from Scotland, and of course we all welcome the fact that the very coins in our pockets are minted in the great country of Wales.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr identified the Federal Reserve as an example of a central bank that adopts a dual mandate. US policy makers have judged that that is right for them. We believe that the primacy of price stability is important for anchoring inflation expectations, and we are joined in that belief by other central banks, including those in Canada and New Zealand and the European Central Bank.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to respond to a range of issues raised in this part of the debate. I commend the Government’s new clause to the House and hope that it will agree to include it in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Composition of the Court of Directors of the Bank of England

“In making nominations to the Court of Directors of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to the importance of ensuring a balanced representation from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.”— (George Kerevan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 303.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9 - Money laundering

‘(1) In any regulations or orders transposing money laundering measures contained within Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 (or in relation to any subsequent EU amending or successor measure) the Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure, insofar as such regulations relate to institutions regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority—
(a) reasonable regard and due prominence is given to—
(i) Preambular (33),
(ii) Article 13(2),
(iii) Article 15, and
(iv) Article 16 and Annex II;
(b) clarity is achieved with respect to the meaning and interpretation of “prominent public function” in the context of money laundering;
(c) reasonable regard and due prominence is given to Article 22 which recognises that a PEP may have no prominent public function; and
(d) any interpretation of “adequate” Article 20(b)(ii), and “enhanced” in Article 20(b)(iii) takes account of, and gives due prominence to, the provisions in Article 13 on risk sensitivity.
(2) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(3) After Part 20A insert—

“Part 20C - Money Laundering

333U Anti-money laundering: guidance
‘(1) The FCA must, prior to relevant regulations coming into force, issue guidance to regulated entities on the definition of one or more categories of “politically exposed persons” (“PEPs”).
(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must include, but need not be limited to—
(a) a requirement to take a proportional, risk-based and differentiated approach to conducting transactions or business relationships with each category of PEP that may be defined; and
(b) specified categories of persons to be—
(i) included and
(ii) excluded
from any definitions of PEPs.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision about—
(a) the guidance issued, amended and/or reissued under subsection (1);
(b) arrangements for complaints about the treatment of individuals by regulated entities to be received, assessed and adjudicated by the FCA, where—
(i) a person was treated as though he or she was a PEP (and he was not),
(ii) a person who is a PEP was treated unreasonably in disregard of guidance under subsection (1), particularly in regard to specific elements required under subsection (2)(a), or
(iii) a person was refused a business relationship solely on the basis of that he or she is a PEP,
(c) circumstances in which—
(i) compensation payments are to be required from, or
(ii) financial penalties are to be imposed on regulated entities where complaints under paragraph (b) are upheld.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), “relevant regulations” means regulations transposing into UK law measures that EU Member States are required to implement to combat money-laundering (or subsequent regulations amending those regulations) that contain references to PEPs.
(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (3) is exercisable by statutory instrument which may only be made after a draft of any such instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”’—(Mr Walker.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Charles Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Natascha Engel: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Debt management plan charges—
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 137FBB insert—
“137FBC FCA general rules: debt management plan charges
(1) The FCA must make general rules in relation to debt management plans.
(2) The rules must specify that—
(a) if a majority of creditors agree to a creditor fee arrangement, then all creditors shall be bound by the arrangement;
(b) a creditor fee arrangement may subsequently be varied by the agreement of a majority of creditors; and
(c) a creditor fee arrangement and any variations must take the form of a written contract executed by a majority of the creditors and must be distributed to all creditors upon completion.
(3) In this section—
“creditor fee arrangement” means an arrangement whereby the fees incurred as part of the debt management plan are paid by the creditors, calculated either as a fixed amount, a percentage of the amount owed to them or a combination of a fixed amount and a percentage; and
“a majority of creditors” means a subset of creditors where the amount owed to them is more than half of the total amount owed.”’
New clause 14—Combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements—
‘(1) Section 3B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert—
“(i) combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements.
(1A) (a) in observing principle (i), the regulators must undertake, in consultation with the Treasury, an annual review for presentation to the Treasury into abusive tax avoidance, including measures to ascertain and record beneficial ownership of trusts using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA, control of shareholders and ownership of shares, and investment arrangements in an overseas territory outside the UK involving UK financial institutions.
(b) in this section “beneficial ownership of trusts” includes ownership of any equitable interest in a trust including being an object of a discretionary trust, power of appointment or similar arrangement as well as any vested interest under a trust;
(c) “control of shareholders and ownership of shares in companies using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA” shall include control by any person with control over a voteholder in a company as defined in Part VI Official Listing s.89F of the FSMA (2000) as applied mutatis mutandis to this context, whether directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with some other person.”’
Amendment 1, in clause 24,page20, leave out lines 5 to 10.
Amendment 8,page20,line10, at end add
“and insert—
‘(6) Where the authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (7) and (8) do apply.
(6A) If the FCA satisfies itself that a person (P), who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant authorised person, is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (8).
(6B) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the FCA that P had taken such steps as a person in P’s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).””
Amendment 2,page20, leave out lines 22 to 27.p
Amendment 9,page20,line27, at end add
“and insert—
‘(6) Where the PRA-authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (6A) and (6B) do apply.
(6A) If the PRA satisfies itself that a person (P) who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant PRA-authorised person is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (6B).
(6B) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the PRA that P had taken such steps as a person in P‘s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).”
Amendment 10,in schedule 4, page62,line2, leave out paragraph 18.

Charles Walker: New clause 9 is designed to prevent the restriction or withdrawal of banking services from perhaps tens of thousands of people. Those people include soldiers and others serving in the armed forces, judges, civil servants, trade unionists, and local councillors and their officials. Those people, along with their families and associates, are deemed to be “politically exposed persons” for the purposes of the fourth money laundering directive, which is due to be transposed into UK law by no later than June 2017.
The scope of new clause 9 is straightforward. It is designed to ensure that when that money laundering directive is transposed into UK law, reasonable regard is given to the parts of the directive that deal with proportionality. The new clause makes it clear that prior to the enactment of the directive, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will be amended so that the Financial Conduct Authority will be required to publish clear guidance to the banks defining what it deems to be proportionate. New clause 9 also makes regulatory provision for PEPs who believe that they have been treated unreasonably by their banks to ask that their case be adjudicated by the FCA.

Steve McCabe: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the new clause. I understand from what we heard during today’s topical questions that it is likely that the Government will accept it, so he is obviously in the right area. Is he worried that banks are acting in advance of the measure and that there is quite a lot of evidence that they are  already gathering information about ordinary, law-abiding members of the public and using it as an excuse to restrict their banking activities?

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Banks are de-risking very aggressively at the moment and we need to inject some proportionality into their actions. I believe that the new clause will go some way towards achieving that.
New clause 9 inserts into the Bill a process of adjudication. If a politically exposed person believes that they are being treated unfairly—being denied access to banking services—they can take their concern or complaint to the FCA, which can then adjudicate. The FCA can decide whether banks are interpreting the directive over-aggressively and, if they are, levy a fine on them for doing so. The new clause has nothing to do with reducing accountability; it is about increasing proportionality, which is the right thing to do.
Why is new clause 9 needed? It is needed because it is clear that in interpreting the fourth money laundering directive, banks are making no distinction, when determining who is a politically exposed person, between PEPs drawn from the corruption hotbeds of Nigeria, Russia and parts of the subcontinent, and those drawn from developed democracies such as ours that have high levels of scrutiny and accountability.

Stewart Jackson: May I put on record the thanks of all of us in the House to my hon. Friend for his diligence, focus and tenacity in bringing this massively important issue to the attention of the Government and for what we hope will be a satisfactory conclusion today? Does he agree that the collateral damage of some of the precipitous action of the banks has been a big impact on people’s families and, as a corollary, their future credit worthiness?

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said, the banks have acted very aggressively, and I shall return to that point in a few moments.
May I thank the Economic Secretary for her time and patience in dealing with this matter? I have been speaking to her about it for four months, and I admit that I have got a little over-excited on occasions. However, she has always maintained high levels of good humour and patience, for which I thank her. It is important to put that on the record.
At this late stage, without the intervention of new clause 9, the directive risks blighting the lives of decent people. They are not just people working in public life and service but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) pointed out, their partners, spouses, children, parents, siblings and in-laws. The directive is not proportionate.
Even more worryingly, the directive covers the close associates of politically exposed persons. I am aware that one such close associate is a member of the press lobby. He had some problems with an individual savings account and was subject to close questioning by his bank. When he asked the person on the other end of the phone why the bank was conducting itself in such a way, the response was, “Because we understand that you are an associate of the Prime Minister.” Even the media are caught up in this directive, or rather the banks’ de-risking in preparation for its introduction.
The Financial Action Task Force, whose guidance underpins the directive and is repeatedly referred to in it, states:
“For close associates, examples include”—
the House needs to listen carefully to this because it is quite an odd paragraph—
“the following types of relationships: (known) (sexual) partners outside the family unit (e.g. girlfriends, boyfriends, mistresses); prominent members of the same political party, civil organisation”—
that could be the National Trust—
“labour or employee union as the PEP; business partners or associates, especially those that share (beneficial) ownership of legal entities with the PEP, or who are otherwise connected”.
My fear is that, without clear Government-backed FCA guidance, as provided for in new clause 9, the banks, in their rush to de-risk, will continue to draw on the work of the Financial Action Task Force. The Financial Action Task Force states in paragraph 37 of its 2013 guidance:
“there should be awareness that middle ranking and more junior officials could act on behalf of a PEP to circumvent…controls. These less prominent public functions could be appropriately taken into account as customer risk factors in the framework of the overall assessment of risks”.

Greg Knight: The case that my hon. Friend makes is overwhelming. Will he tell the House whether he is aware of anyone who is opposed to what he is trying to do?

Charles Walker: I am sure that there will always be people who are opposed to what I am trying to do. That is the nature of society—we live in an open society in which people have different points of view on many issues. The fourth money laundering directive should be about capturing bad people in its scope, not capturing all people. If everyone is thought of as bad, it is very difficult to identify who is actually breaking the law. We want to go after the law breakers, not those people who, by accident, are described or identified as PEPs by banks in this country.

James Cleverly: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the rush to implement these actions ahead of the directive indicates a desire by the banks to take what seems to be decisive action against a group of people who are quite easy to target, and that the banks will be less keen to take that action against people who are harder to track down? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I know the fondness of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for live music, and it is a fondness that I share, but there are limits.

Charles Walker: I thought that rather complemented the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly)—it was almost like an opera singer opening his lungs.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Banks need to invest their resources, time and energy in going after high-risk people. Banks know which people are high risk. To be perfectly honest, whatever people in this country think about their Members of Parliament, trade unionists, council officers and leaders, Assembly Members and Members of the Scottish Parliament, they are, in the main, not bad people indulging in money laundering. I am not saying that there will not be a bad apple, but those people do not present the real  and current risk. Banks’ energies should be focused not on chasing after the good, but on chasing after the very bad.
The Financial Action Task Force catch-all that says that even middle-ranking people can be involved in money laundering basically puts everyone above grade 7 in the civil service in the frame. Think of people in a Government-backed organisation or trade union regional organisers. If banks follow the FATF guidance, those people could be deemed to be politically exposed persons, so not only their banking facilities, but those of their families and associates, could be withdrawn or curtailed.
I will make some progress, as I was not planning to speak for so long. Once a PEP, always a PEP. Although article 22 of the directive states that after 12 months have passed from the point at which the politically exposed person has left office, a bank can decide that that person is no longer a PEP—that sounds like good news—it goes on to say that banks will
“be required to take into account the continuing risk posed by that person and to apply appropriate and risk-sensitive measures until such time as that person is deemed to pose no further risk specific to politically exposed persons.”
That is the lobster pot from which few will escape. Banks are risk averse, so they will feel that it is much better to keep someone as a PEP indefinitely than to take the risk of downgrading them to the status of a normal customer unless they are obliged to do so.
Forget people serving in public life; let us think about those who have left it. Without the protections and guidance in new clause 9, ex-Army officers, ex-judges, ex-trade union representatives, ex-community leaders, volunteers and ex-members of political parties, and former Members of Parliament could be denied the opportunity to serve on charitable and company boards because their presence would confer the status of politically exposed person on the rest of the board. That status is best avoided by individuals who are not yet stigmatised. If conferred, such a status could lead to a withdrawal of the relevant charity or company’s banking services. This is not supposition and I am not making this up. Along with the restriction of banking services, the closure of personal accounts and the blackballing of family members, it is happening now. In accepting new clause 9, the Government will enshrine in an Act of Parliament that banks have a legal duty to act proportionately and in accordance with FCA guidance, and that is the correct thing to do.
New clause 9 is not about protecting politicians. Politicians are politically exposed people, but I understand that even a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Treasury has had difficulties with this issue. Although the rights of politicians and their families are no less deserving of respect than anyone else’s, this is about protecting the banking, financial and future employment rights of the many thousands of people whose names appear in the civil service year book. It is about protecting the rights of military personnel who serve our country, committed council officials who serve their community and trade unionists. New clause 9 not only protects those people’s rights, but the rights of their extended families who had no say in their relation’s career choice, but are dragged into the scope of the directive.
Finally, I thank the Government for indicating that they will accept new clause 9. By doing so, they will reduce the chances of an Army officer who is serving their country somewhere hot and dangerous receiving a telephone call from his or her spouse saying, “Darling, while you’re being shot at, we’ve had our bank account closed and we’ve lost our mortgage.” I congratulate the Government on doing the right thing today.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) who made an excellent speech on an important subject. He showed his characteristic bravery and forcefulness in addressing an issue that many other hon. Members wanted to address, but were unenthusiastic about putting themselves in the firing line.
The Minister said earlier that everybody is happy with this Bill, but now that we are discussing the regulation of financial services, she may discover that Labour Members are not quite so happy with this part of the Bill. I wish to speak in support of amendments 8 and 9, and I am also sympathetic to amendment 2 tabled by the Scottish National party. Getting the senior management regime right is vital for reducing the risk of further irresponsible behaviour in financial institutions, particularly the banks. We all know the devastating impact that the behaviour of the banks had on rest of the economy—anyone who is in any doubt about that should see the film “The Big Short”, which wonderfully describes that episode, albeit from an American point of view.
The clauses on the senior management regime are a retreat from the sensible legislation introduced in 2012, following the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which recognised that one way of changing behaviour and culture is to make those people at the top of the banks accept their full responsibility. The clauses in the Bill no longer do that. It is completely sensible for people to be expected to have the same responsibility for the behaviour of those who work for them that other institutions have for health and safety.
We have heard a number of arguments for the Government’s decision to reverse the reversal of the burden of the proof—rather an awkward mouthful—and one of the main arguments is that the regulatory approach that was legislated for in 2012 is too burdensome. This, however, misses the whole point, which is that we want people to spend more time looking at how to reduce risk rather than spending a great deal of time on how to make lots and lots of money irrespective of the risks posed to the economy. The risk does not apply ultimately to themselves on their own account, but it infects all other financial institutions.
I attended a seminar in the City last week, and senior practitioners from law firms, accountancy firms and from some of the big asset managers were in attendance and proved to be supportive of the original parliamentary commission approach. I expressed my feeling that it was disappointing that the Chancellor was going back on this, and suggested that he was not doing it as a whim, but because he had been lobbied to do so. I asked why they thought he had been lobbied in this way. It was, of course, a naive question, and I had no idea what the answer would be. They all roared with laughter and said, “Well, it’s obvious. It’s a way to facilitate people making millions of pounds without facing any downside risks.”
We cannot put ourselves in that situation again. The cost of the bail-out in 2008 was £133 billion. We really must take seriously the lessons that can be learned from that, which is why the amendments tabled by my Front-Bench team and by the SNP should be taken seriously and accepted by the Government.

Gary Streeter: I should like to take this opportunity to introduce my new clause 10, which is aimed at safeguarding the free debt management sector. Let me reassure the Minister that this is very much a probing amendment; I know she is looking forward to responding to it.
There has been a long debate over the “fee versus free” principle in the provision of debt management plans for indebted consumers. It is not my intention to re-open that debate now, although my concern is about free providers that are facing a looming capacity crisis.
Organisations such as PayPlan and Christians Against Poverty operate the “fair share” model of free debt management that sees creditors covering the cost of customer plans on a polluter-pays basis—in other words, through schemes that are free to the debtor. These organisations are facing increasing pressure as a consequence of fee-charging firms leaving the marketplace after failing Financial Conduct Authority authorisation. In one recent case, this left 16,000 debt management clients unsupported, and these customers are now being are being signposted to free providers. The last thing people want to happen when they are caught up in the desperation of heavy debts and are trying to slog their way out of it is, of course, that the person advising them suddenly disappears so that they have to start again with new people.
The debt management sector is nearing a desperate point, and the market is becoming increasingly inefficient, with consumers treated badly in many cases. The fair-share operators I mentioned have seen their revenue reduce as a consequence of consumers’ disposable income falling. As more and more fee chargers leave the market, we will soon face a situation in which fair-share operators are unable to provide economically viable plans. Plainly, we now face a situation in which consumers will be charged higher fees and their options for free debt management services will be severely limited—again, we are going in the wrong direction.
There were considerable and commendable efforts over the course of the last Parliament aimed at safeguarding free debt management provision, most notably on the creation of a voluntary protocol. Members of all parties have tried to make similar long-term changes, reflecting the cross-party nature of this issue. More recent efforts have come from the parliamentary debt management working group, of which I am a member. I see in her place our chairman, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who is poised to speak in, I hope, support of my new clause.
Recent efforts have been aimed at establishing an industry-wide offering of free consumer debt management services. I accept that, while desirable, such an approach may not be feasible at this time. The new clause provides for a small tweak to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, mandating all creditors, via an FCA rule change, to fund free-to-consumer debt management plans under the “fair share” model. Many large creditors—banks and credit card companies—do accept a reduction  in the amount due in exchange for the establishment of a coherent plan, but some still do not, and the new clause is intended to tackle that. While it falls short of outlawing the provision of fee-charging plans, it provides a strong safeguard for the “fair share” model, ensuring that customers can continue to access free debt management plans.
I am certain that this is a robust mechanism for desperately needed reform in the debt management sector, and I hope that, subject to Members’ approval, it can be implemented without delay. I thank the Economic Secretary for her interest in the matter, and for her helpful guidance behind the scenes.
Every age has its challenges, and it may well be that historians will look back at our era and marvel at the levels of unsustainable personal debt that were carried by so many people. Such debt may arise from grave misfortune, poor choices or the actions of others, but whatever the reason, it is vital that the right help is at hand to help people to step their way out of debt, and the FCA can assist that process by making the rule changes I have proposed. I thank the Economic Secretary again for her patience and kindness, and commend the new clause to her and to the House.

Yvonne Fovargue: I am afraid that I cannot support new clause 10. While I have great sympathy with the aim of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) to keep the free-to-consumer plans going, I do not feel that his new clause will achieve that.
I am slightly unclear about the use of the term “fee”. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is currently a voluntary arrangement. I am a little concerned about what public benefit would result from his proposal. Would it merely ensure supplier revenues for certain service providers? If so, is that really a legislative issue? I have wider concerns. I feel that too few debt providers give advice on debt, but I also feel that the current landscape is fairly confusing. I do not think that introducing a statutory funding mechanism for one debt solution—a debt management plan—is the right way forward. Plenty of options are available to people in debt, including bankruptcy, debt relief orders, debt management plans, administration orders, debt consolidation, and individual voluntary arrangements.
Many of those plans are not funded sustainably. I think that one organisation that offers them is paid £35 for each order that it issues, and that is not a sustainable solution. I do not want providers to offer plans on the basis of how they are funded rather than on the basis of what is best for the individual, but I fear that the new clause could lead to their doing so. I am sure that many would not, but the new clause might lead to more providers’ choosing to offer the “fair share” solution because it is statutorily funded, whereas they make a loss on every debt relief order that they issue. That is not the best solution for the individual who is in debt.
I think that we need a proper review of the current debt solution landscape. I believe that it is too complex, and that it is not properly costed. I also believe that the providers have insufficient funding. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a problem with the debt management plans. In fact, a review of the fee-charging debt management companies found that 60% of their clients were put in a worse position. That cannot be allowed to continue,  and I am pleased that the FCA is cleaning up the market. However, I worry about what will happen to people who come off debt management plans. They took a big step to deal with their debts—and facing up to the fact that you cannot pay your bills is a difficult decision to make—and went to a provider. Now they have been told, “Actually, your provider was not providing a good service. Go and find somebody else.” I worry that those people will not look around, and I hope that the Minister will look at ways of promoting opportunities for them to go to other providers.
I also hope that funding will be available for the other providers, and that they will not be left in the unsustainable position of having to pick up a large number of people all at once. It might be sustainable to pick up 16,000 people over a few months, but to pick them all up immediately when a company goes bump is really difficult. I have sympathy for the motives behind new clause 10, but I do not feel that it will solve the main problem, which is that many debt solutions providers do not have sufficient funding. The new clause would focus on only one solution and could well skew the market in the wrong way, to the advantage of the providers rather than of the people who need the solution.

George Kerevan: I should like to speak to amendments 1 and 2, tabled in my name, and in passing to amendments 8 and 9, tabled by Labour Members. I shall not press amendments 1 and 2 to a vote, but should Labour Members move on amendment 8 and the consequential amendment 9, we will support them.
There is much in the Bill to commend it to us and to the House, and much that will add to the regulatory regime and its performance in the UK. However, the worst part of this legislation—the time bomb ticking away inside it—is the Government’s attempt to shift legislation that they put in place only four years ago on the reverse burden of proof for major financial infractions. That is the nub of the matter. Legislation was introduced four years ago that identified senior managers in major banks and other financial organisations and stated that if a serious infraction of regulations was encountered on their watch, they would automatically be held responsible unless they could prove that they had taken due steps to prevent it from happening.
That legislation had a great deal of support in the House and among the public, because it was the one sure way of ensuring that those at senior level in the financial sector would not continue to do what they had done all through the 2007-08 crisis: blame everyone else and say that it was not their fault. The legislation made senior managers responsible, just as senior managers in other organisations and utilities have become responsible for major crises.
Why would the Government want to change that law before it even came into operation this month? That sends out the wrong signal. When we put legislation in place that has consensus behind it, we should try it and see whether it works. However, the Chancellor, whose constant refrain is that he has a long-term economic plan, has decided to change the legislation before it has even come into operation. That change sends out all the wrong signals. The Minister will probably say that the measure is disproportionate now that the Government   have widened the number of people being caught up in the senior management regime to tens of thousands, and that applying the law could become problematic. I know all the explanations, but I put it to her that by reneging on legislation that was put in place with great fanfare four years ago before it is even operational, the Government are simply signalling to the rest of the world that they are loosening the regulatory bonds. They might think that they are not doing that, but they are sending out the wrong signal.
The Government have been sending out another signal as well. For years, the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have been telling us that we should pay lower taxes, that taxes are bad, and that we should keep more of our own money. Suddenly, however, when we discover that hundreds of thousands of people are setting up secret offshore bank accounts, the Government get all holy and moral, saying, “We didn’t mean you to do that!” This Government sometimes speak with two voices. Individual Ministers are honest and sincere, but they do not understand that they sometimes speak with one voice on taxes and regulation and then do the opposite. It sends out the wrong signal. The Government cannot go on blaming other people. They are to blame if they change the rule without having put it into force for at least a few years to see whether it works. That is why we must leave the provisions in the Financial Services Act 2012 until it has been proven that they do not work.

Richard Burgon: I rise to speak to new clause 14, amendment 8, and amendments 9 and 10, which are consequential on amendment 8, tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I will first discuss new clause 14 on combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements and then our amendment on the reverse burden of proof, or the presumption of responsibility, as I choose to call it, for senior managers in the banking sector.
Labour tabled new clause 14 in the wake of Panama papers leak, which the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) just mentioned. The new clause sets out that combating abusive tax avoidance should be established as new regulatory principle for the FCA, and requires the FCA to
“undertake, in consultation with the Treasury, an annual review for presentation to the Treasury into abusive tax avoidance”.
The new clause makes it clear that the new principle should involve
“measures to ascertain and record beneficial ownership of trusts using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA, control of shareholders and ownership of shares, and investment arrangements in an overseas territory outside the UK involving UK financial institutions.”
Members will be aware that Labour published its tax transparency enforcement programme following the Panama papers leak, and the release of the information that thousands of companies listed in the Mossack Fonseca papers have financial services provided by UK banks. Our programme makes it clear that Labour will
“work with banks to provide further information over beneficial ownership for all companies and trusts that they work for.”
The new clause seeks to establish a procedure to enact that.
Last week, the Government announced a deal on the global exchange of beneficial ownership. We of course welcome that as an initial step, but it is insufficient. The measures announced by the EU this week are also welcome, but they do not go nearly far enough, because they require only partial reporting. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said last week:
“The turnover threshold is far too high, and Labour MEPs in Europe will be”
doing the right thing in
“pushing to get that figure reduced much lower to make it more difficult for large corporations to dodge paying their fair share of tax.”—[Official Report, 13 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 369.]
Banks need to reveal the beneficial ownership of the companies and trusts with which they work. That means establishing a record of ownership of the companies and trusts supported by UK banks, whether or not the owners are resident in the UK. We must ensure that Crown dependencies and overseas territories enforce far stricter minimum standards of transparency for company and trust ownership, but when UK banks are involved, it is right that a record is maintained of the beneficial owners that they advise.
The tax expert Richard Murphy has written that Jersey, Guernsey and the Cayman Islands are
“cock-a-hoop at having rebuffed calls from David Cameron that they must have readily accessible registers of beneficial ownership even for the use of UK law enforcement agencies”.
The shadow Chancellor said in response to those calls that the
“agreement is a welcome step in the right direction but it fails to do anything to tackle the tax havens based in British Overseas Territories. Failure to take responsibility for these British Dependencies substantially undermines the effectiveness of this agreement.”
Similarly, we are aware that the Financial Conduct Authority wrote to banks urging them to declare their links to Mossack Fonseca by 15 April. The FCA’s call on UK financial institutions to review links with Mossack Fonseca is welcome, but the regulator should recognise the need for complete transparency to retain public confidence.
The FCA should seek full disclosure and act without delay. The slow, drip-drip responses of the Prime Minister’s office in recent weeks have served only to fuel public concern and have been very much a lesson in how to raise suspicion unintentionally. The FCA should publish details of which financial institutions it has written to and why; what information it has asked them to provide; and what action it will take, now that the 15 April deadline has passed. Importantly, it cannot allow banks and their subsidiaries to conduct an open-ended internal investigation, but must establish an early deadline for the disclosure of all information on their relations with Mossack Fonseca, so that the regulator can take all necessary action. Campaigners Global Witness responded by saying:
“These are welcome first steps…but the UK authorities are missing the wider point. Mossack Fonseca is no bad apple; it is just one small part of a much deeper problem.”
That is why it is necessary for us to have a clear direction of travel towards recording beneficial ownership of trust services by UK banks, as we are seeking to do with this new clause.
Given the widespread concerns about tax avoidance, the British public, who bailed out the country’s banking sector, deserve to know the facts about the role of UK banks in this unfolding story. With new clause 14,  Labour has made a positive and practical proposal to take steps to increase tax transparency and publicly available information on the beneficial owners of companies and trusts registered in tax havens.
Let me now deal with the remainder of the amendments. Labour’s position was set out clearly on Second Reading and in our amendments in Committee: removing the reverse burden of proof—the presumption of responsibility—is unreasonable, unwise and, I am sorry to say, risky. We continue to support the current legislation, which was agreed by the Chancellor and in both Houses as recently as in consideration on the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. That is why we have re-tabled our amendments on keeping the presumption of responsibility. It should not be forgotten that this measure was a key recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which said that it
“would make sure that those who should have prevented serious prudential and conduct failures would no longer be able to walk away simply because of the difficulty of proving individual culpability in the context of complex organisations.”
The presumption of responsibility, as currently set out in legislation, applies to senior managers. It means that to avoid being found guilty of misconduct when there has been a regulatory contravention in an area for which they are responsible, they will have to prove that they took reasonable steps to prevent that contravention. This Bill removes that onus on senior bankers. The onus is entirely reasonable, proportionate and, as bitter experience tells the British people, necessary. Misconduct and misdemeanours in financial services are not merely a tale from history. In 2015, for example, the FCA had to fine firms more than £900 million, and we have also seen the LIBOR scandal, foreign exchange fines and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance to the value of up to £33 billion. The presumption of responsibility is so reasonable and necessary that the policy was introduced with cross-party support; that should not be forgotten.
The 2013 Act applied the presumption of responsibility, through the senior managers and certification regime, to all “authorised persons”. This Bill extends that authorised persons regime to a wider range of businesses but has watered down the presumption of responsibility to a mere “duty of responsibility”. The vast majority of people working in the financial sector were not, and are not, affected by the existing legislation, and would remain unaffected should our amendment pass. That is why the legislation was passed by Government Members in the first place.
In December 2013, speaking of the stricter measures being introduced by the Government, including the reverse burden of proof, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said:
“The introduction of this offence means that…in future those who bring down their bank by making thoroughly unreasonable decisions can be held accountable for their actions…Senior managers could be liable if they take a decision that leads to the failure of the bank…The maximum sentence for the new offence…reflects the seriousness that the Government, and society more broadly, place on ensuring that our financial institutions are managed in a way that does not recklessly endanger the economy or the public purse.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 252.]
On that, at least, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is a shame that there has been a change in position.
The Chair of the Treasury Committee said:
“Far from imperilling the UK’s global competitiveness, high standards will make the UK a more attractive place to locate.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 76.]
Other commentators and campaigners who have expressed their support include Martin Wolf of the Financial Times. We have re-tabled this amendment to state our clear opposition to this unwelcome, unnecessary and risky change.
The legislation was introduced by the Chancellor in 2013, and Members of the House should not forget that it was due to come into force in March this year. It has yet to be even tested, as the hon. Member for East Lothian said. Now is not the time to make this concession to top bankers. Both the announcement of the Chancellor’s “new settlement” with financial services—including as it does the departure of Martin Wheatley from the FCA and the scrapping of the FCA’s review of banking culture—and the recent discovery that UK banks, Crown dependencies and overseas territories are at the heart of the Panama papers tax haven scandal mean that the proposal in the Bill to remove the presumption of responsibility is the wrong proposal at the wrong time. We urge Members to support our amendment.
Let me turn to new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). We recognise the concern about fee-chargers in the debt management sector, who often charge clients exorbitant amounts to set up plans that can clearly add to clients’ problems, rather than helping to alleviate them. In the scenario proposed, instead of charging fees to customers, the commercial debt management companies would receive income though a statutory levy on creditors, and all creditors would be bound by a fee arrangement to which the majority agree. However, it is not clear how that helps consumers specifically. The rules could bind some commercial organisations to paying fees to other ones. There are serious competition issues here, and I am aware of the FCA’s concerns on that point.
There are questions to ask about how the creditors set the level of fees. The measures would not stop commercial debt management companies charging consumers in addition to the fee. In some circumstances, they could lead to commercial providers advising people on the basis of their creditors and not on their actual needs.
Although the new clause can be admirably presented as a way of killing off fee charging, it may well result in a lifeline being thrown to the sector. Critics may well ask why the Government should intervene to prop up this market, just at the point when the FCA is cleaning it up. Secondly, it introduces a statutory funding mechanism for one debt solution—debt management plans—when in fact there are many options available for people in debt, including bankruptcy, debt relief orders, debt management plans, administration orders, debt consolidation and individual voluntary arrangements. Only about one third of those people seeking debt advice are provided with a debt management plan; for others, it is simply not the right fit. Although we welcome the debate, we feel that it is necessary to consider how best we meet the needs of all people with debt problems, so we do not support the new clause.
Finally, let me turn to new clause 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). I am aware that this is an issue of concern to Members in all parts  of the House. The global rules against money laundering require banks and regulated businesses to carry out enhanced due diligence on all politically exposed persons—individuals entrusted with a public function—but if the transposition of the EU directive into domestic legislation is mishandled, a wide range of other people could be affected. It could adversely affect tens of thousands of people, including civil servants, city workers and even, as has been described, the families of armed forces officers serving our country abroad.
The EU’s fourth money laundering directive, passed last year, will need to be transposed into UK law within two years, as has been mentioned. We need to get this right to ensure that the safeguards proposed to prevent tax avoidance and money laundering and, in the light of the Panama papers, the provisions governing the register of beneficial ownership of companies and trusts do not get in the way of individuals using their bank accounts, securing mortgages or supporting charities. We believe that this is an important issue, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for all his hard work explaining the potential risks to the House.

Harriett Baldwin: Let me start with new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and others, which addresses the important issue of politically exposed persons. My colleague is an expert not only in oratory but in parliamentary procedure and I commend him for his use of both in this example. The Chancellor and I are very concerned about this issue, as my hon. Friend knows, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for his assiduous work in collating examples that he has heard from colleagues and from the banking sector.
It is absolutely right that the “know your customer” requirements should be tailored to the risk posed, and I reassure the House that we are very much on the side of colleagues in this regard. I therefore welcome the amendment and the strong message it sends to banks as they implement these rules. The new clause also addresses guidance, and I fully agree that guidance will help the banks to take an effective, proportionate and commensurate approach to politically exposed persons. The Government intend to implement new money laundering regulations by June next year at the latest and this amendment will come into force at that time. We will consult on the new regulations this year.
As well as accepting the new clause, I want to take the opportunity to update the House on other action that we have taken to resolve these issues on behalf of Members since my hon. Friend had his Adjournment debate on 20 January. On 1 March we had a meeting with the banks that I organised with the Minister for Security from the Home Office, and on 23 March the Chancellor wrote to the banks to explain our views. We will continue to work with the banks, with the FCA and with others to ensure that a sensible and proportionate approach prevails.
I have also written not once but twice in a “Dear colleague” letter to all Members and Peers giving colleagues the name of a senior designated person to contact at each major bank should they or a family member encounter any problems. To conclude on this new clause, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the House so that I can give this reassurance about the attention that the Government are paying to this challenge.
New clause 10, on debt management plans, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), and I thank him for his collaborative approach in tabling the amendment and the ongoing commitment shown by him and his all-party group to supporting all households in problem debt. The Government share his concerns about the potential for detriment to occur to consumers participating in some debt management plans and I recognise the importance of protecting this vulnerable group of consumers. The Government’s focus has been on comprehensively reforming the regulation of the sector to ensure that financial services firms are on the side of people who work hard, do the right thing and get on in life. Responsibility for regulating debt management firms, like that for all other consumer credit firms, transferred from the OFT to the FCA on 1 April 2014. The FCA has made addressing the risk posed to consumers by non-compliant debt management firms the highest priority, alongside payday lending.
Indeed, debt management firms were in the first group of firms to require full authorisation, and the FCA is thoroughly scrutinising firms’ business models and practices. Firms that do not meet the FCA’s threshold conditions will not be able to continue to offer debt management plans. Removing non-compliant debt management firms from the market will fundamentally reduce the risk of harm to consumers and will ensure that consumers have access to sustainable repayment plans as a result of providers acting in the best interest of consumers.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) raised the question of the handover of clients with debt management plans whose firms have not been authorised by the FCA. That is an issue to which the FCA is playing close attention, to try to ensure that data protection issues are taken into account and to accommodate the disheartening position of someone with one of those plans whose firm fails to be authorised, for whom a better alternative must be found.
On the issue raised by the amendment—how debt management plans are funded—charities such as StepChange and Christians Against Poverty already successfully negotiate voluntary funding agreements with creditors through the fair share model. Introducing changes to this funding arrangement, such as mandatory contributions, may have unintended consequences, disrupting a successful funding arrangement for charities. Consequently, setting the level of this share is not supported by the not-for-profit sector. Similarly, not-for-profit providers are concerned that formalising fair share contributions may change charities’ relationship with creditors and compromise their independence. The perception of charities by their clients as impartial advocates is essential to encouraging households in problem debt to come forward for support.
With the FCA’s authorisation process ongoing, and the anticipated changes in the market that that will bring, now is not the right time to introduce changes to the way debt management plans are funded. Any consideration of changes to funding arrangements should take place when the shape of the debt management market is known. The best setting for looking at the full landscape of debt advice funding will be in the context of the public financial guidance review, which includes a commitment for the Government to monitor the  impact on the FCA authorisation process. If necessary, the funding arrangements for debt advice will be reviewed, and the Government may consider broadening the funding base to include other sectors, to ensure that consumers continue to get the help they need. I trust that this assures my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon that the Government continue to consider it a priority to help those facing problem debt, and that he will not press his amendment to the vote.
I shall deal now with amendments 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10, which would apply the reverse burden of proof to senior managers in the banking sector or in all authorised financial services firms. We reject both sets of amendments, above all because the senior managers and certification regime with a statutory duty of responsibility will be an extremely effective tool for holding senior managers to account.
The duty of responsibility will extend to all senior managers. The discredited approved persons regime will be replaced. Firms must identify exactly what their senior managers are responsible for. Senior managers will not be able to wriggle off the hook because they did not know what was being done in the areas for which they are responsible. The reverse burden of proof is not needed to deliver what we want to deliver—a culture change.
Lord Turnbull, who was a Cross-Bench member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, said:
“In future, senior managers will have to take responsibility for what goes on in the teams for which they are responsible and for the actions of the people whom they have appointed and thereby given accreditation.”
He went on to say:
“I still fail to see why the reverse burden of proof is the only way to get people to understand that. . . I believe that the proposal now in the Bill—
that is, the duty of responsibility—
is superior.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2015; Vol. 767, c. 2026-28.]
In written evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Building Societies Association stated:
“The lack of individual accountability to date is mainly the result of a failure to allocate responsibilities in firms’ corporate governance frameworks. Because this deficiency will be fully addressed by the new strengthening accountability in banking rules (through responsibility maps, individual statements of responsibility, handover arrangements), the reversed burden of proof is unfair and is redundant”—
not my words, but those of the Building Societies Association.
Today’s debate is about what happens when things go wrong and a firm breaks a regulatory requirement. Under the reverse burden of proof, the senior manager responsible for the area of the firm where the breach occurred would have to prove that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent it. The Bill will impose a statutory duty of responsibility on senior managers. Senior managers would still be required to take reasonable steps to prevent breaches of regulations in the areas of the firm’s business for which they are responsible. However, when such a breach occurs, it will fall to the regulators to show that the responsible senior manager had failed to take such steps. This duty will be extended with the senior managers and certification regime to senior managers in all authorised financial services firms, ensuring that they are held to the same high standards as those in banks.
Contrary to the allegations of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the duty is in no way “soft” on bankers. A senior manager can be found guilty of misconduct if a breach of regulatory requirements occurred in the area of the firm’s business for which they are responsible and they did not take reasonable steps to prevent it, whether they were aware of the contravention or not. The hon. Gentleman quoted a previous Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). I think that he might be confusing the reverse burden of proof with the criminal offence of recklessness causing a bank to fail. I can assure him and the House that that criminal offence, with a possible seven-year sentence attached, came into effect in March.
New clause 14 seeks to give the FCA and PRA a statutory duty to have regard to combating tax avoidance, and for them to report annually to the Treasury. I welcome the opportunity once again to set out the measures that this Government have taken—far more than any previous Government—to tackle tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. We have become a world leader in tax transparency. However, as the UK tax authority is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than the FCA or PRA, it is responsible for ensuring that businesses and individuals pay the taxes they owe.
Last week we set out a far more effective package of proposals to tackle the problem of tax evasion and avoidance, ensuring a multi-agency approach by strengthening HMRC and involving relevant bodies such as the FCA. The Government are committed to giving HMRC the tools to do its job, whether by introducing over 40 changes to the tax laws, or by providing additional funding to strengthen its capability in key areas. I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, about all the measures we have introduced—

Rob Marris: Oh, go on.

Harriett Baldwin: Okay, the hon. Gentleman wants to hear more. In the July 2015 Budget we confirmed an extra £800 million investment to fund additional work to tackle evasion and non-compliance. HMRC’s specialist offshore unit is currently investigating more than 1,100 cases of offshore evasion around the world, with more than 90 individuals subject to current criminal investigation. Even before last week, HMRC had already received a great deal of information on offshore companies, including in Panama, and including Mossack Fonseca. This information comes from a wide range of sources and is currently the subject of intense investigation.
We are going further by providing new funding of up to £10 million for an operationally independent cross-agency taskforce. It will include analysts, compliance specialists and investigators from across HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Conduct Authority. It will have full operational independence and will report to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Home Secretary.
Of course the FCA has a role to play. Its 2016-17 business plan states that the fight against financial crime and money laundering is one of its priorities. Its  rules require firms to have effective systems and controls to prevent the risk that they might be used to further financial crimes. That is why the FCA has written to financial firms asking them to declare their links to Mossack Fonseca. If it finds any evidence that firms have been breaking the rules, it already has strong powers to take action. However, it is HMRC that is ultimately responsible for investigating and prosecuting offences associated with tax evasion.
Finally, with regard to trusts, we believe that we have secured a sensible way forward by ensuring that trusts that generate a tax consequence in the UK will be required to report their beneficial ownership information to HMRC. By focusing on such trusts, we are focusing on those where there is a higher risk of money laundering or tax evasion, which arise when trusts migrate or generate income or gains, and minimising burdens on the vast majority of perfectly ordinary and legitimate trusts.
Although I appreciate the spirit with which the new clause has been tabled, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to change the role of the FCA or the PRA, so I urge the hon. Member for Leeds East not to press the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14 - Combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements

“(1) Section 3B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert—
(i) combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements.
(a) in observing principle (i), the regulators must undertake, in consultation with the Treasury, an annual review for presentation to the Treasury into abusive tax avoidance, including measures to ascertain and record beneficial ownership of trusts using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA, control of shareholders and ownership of shares, and investment arrangements in an overseas territory outside the UK involving UK financial institutions.
(b) in this section “beneficial ownership of trusts” includes ownership of any equitable interest in a trust including being an object of a discretionary trust, power of appointment or similar arrangement as well as any vested interest under a trust;
(c) “control of shareholders and ownership of shares in companies using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA” shall include control by any person with control over a voteholder in a company as defined in Part VI Official Listing s.89F of the FSMA (2000) as applied mutatis mutandis to this context, whether directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with some other person.””—(Richard Burgon.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second  time.

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 299.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 24 - Misconduct

Amendment proposed: 8,page20,line10, at end add
“and insert—
‘(6) Where the authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (7) and (8) do apply.
(6A) If the FCA satisfies itself that a person (P), who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant authorised person, is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (8).
(6B) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the FCA that P had taken such steps as a person in P’s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).””—(Richard Burgon.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 300.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 36 - Banks authorised to issue banknotes in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Jonathan Edwards: I beg to move amendment 4,in clause 36, page34,line15, at beginning insert—
“( ) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).”
This amendment and amendment 5 would enable Lloyds Banking Group, the holder of the Bank of Wales trademark, to issue banknotes in Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5,page34,line44, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision authorising Lloyds Banking Group to issue banknotes in Wales”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 4.

Jonathan Edwards: I am delighted that we have reached this group as I feared that our consideration on Report would be concluded prematurely. I therefore have only a very short speech, but luckily this is rather a straightforward and uncomplicated matter. If I had known that I would have far more time than I assumed—a rare privilege in this place—I would have prepared a far lengthier speech, quoting extensively from the masterpiece “A History of Wales” by the late, great John Davies, or John Bwlchllan as he was known to his friends, and from “When was Wales?” by the great historian who was a member of the Labour party and of Plaid Cymru, Gwyn Alf Williams, who retired to Drefach Felindre in my constituency.
I am delighted that my amendments 4 and 5 are being supported by the Labour Front-Bench team. When I was eating my cornflakes in the hotel this morning, it was a nice surprise to receive an email from David Williamson, the Western Mail correspondent, citing a press notice by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales saying that she supported my proposal. Perhaps this is the start of a beautiful new relationship, although I fear that I might be doing my best to scupper those sorts of endeavours after the election. I aim to press amendment 4 to a Division, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have spoken on this issue before in the Chamber, but I will reiterate a few points that I made on Second Reading. The amendment deals with the historical anomaly that prohibits Wales from producing its own distinctive banknotes. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland are allowed to do so, and so to celebrate their respective national figures and landmarks.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The hon. Gentleman talks about our historical position, so does he support my view that my predecessor but one in what was then the constituency of Pontypool, Leo Abse, made probably the greatest contribution in the 20th century as a Back Bencher to changing people’s lives, and therefore would be a fine candidate to go on such banknotes?

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When I realised that I would be able to make this speech, I feared that there would be a lot of interventions along those lines. I will be citing some notable names during my speech, but that is not a matter for politicians to determine.

Nick Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Edwards: I will in a minute—we have to hear from Blaenau Gwent. It would be appropriate if there was a conversation among the people of Wales about who they would like on their banknotes.

Nick Smith: As part of the list of great men and women whom the Welsh people could consider having on our banknotes in the future, may I suggest Aneurin Bevan, a son of Tredegar and founder of the national health service?

Jonathan Edwards: That is certainly one of the names that I would like to see put forward.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman will note that two men—great men—have been recommended, but I would like to see more women represented on banknotes, whether they are Welsh or Bank of England notes. Does he agree that, whether or not one is a big spender, a resident of my own constituency, Dame Shirley Bassey, would be an excellent person to be on a Welsh banknote?

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that intervention, too. I saw that name mentioned very honourably in this morning’s Labour press notice.
Like other parts of the UK, Wales was once awash with small banks covering relatively small geographical areas, and those banks were allowed to issue their own banknotes. The Bank Charter Act 1844 brought an end to Welsh banknotes and provincial banknotes in England, but that measure did not apply to Ireland or Scotland. Four banks in Northern Ireland and three in Scotland have the authority to issue their own banknotes, provided that they are backed by Bank of England notes. The amendments would allow Lloyds Banking Group, which holds the rights to the Bank of Wales brand and is in part publicly owned by Welsh taxpayers, to issue Welsh banknotes, just as is permitted for the three clearing banks in Scotland and four in Northern Ireland.

Hywel Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that a worthwhile commercial advantage would be gained by issuing banknotes? That value would then accrue to Lloyds bank, and possibly to taxpayers in Wales and the rest of the UK, which would be a good move.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to my parliamentary leader for his intervention. He is completely right, and that is why four banks in Northern Ireland and three in Scotland have continued the practice. There is a commercial interest for Lloyds, but also a public interest due to our part ownership of the bank.
Permission to issue Welsh banknotes would be a welcome boost to brand Wales, recognising our country as an equal and economic entity. Notes in Northern Ireland celebrate individuals such as J.B. Dunlop, Harry Ferguson and James Martin, as well as architectural splendour such as that of Belfast city hall. Notes in Scotland pay tribute to that country’s fantastic bridges and recognise the contribution of people such as Sir Walter Scott and Robbie Burns. Notes currently used in Wales recognise people such as Elizabeth Fry, Adam Smith and Matthew Boulton, and previous notes have portrayed Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, Sir Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, George Stephenson and the first Duke of Wellington. They are all great people, but none, to my knowledge, has anything to do with my country.
Is it not fair and sensible for us in Wales to use notes that recognise our historic landmarks, such as the incredible Castell Carreg Cennen in my constituency, Pont Menai in north Wales, Yr Wyddfa—Snowdon, the largest mountain in our country—and our historic greats such as Owain Glyndwr, who was nominated the seventh most important person of the last millennium by The Times, of all papers? There is also David Lloyd George, the originator of the welfare state, Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the NHS, and Gwynfor Evans, the first Plaid Member of Parliament and the father of modern Wales.
A case could also be made for what is arguably the most famous Welsh painting of all: “Salem”, painted by Sydney Curnow Vosper in 1908. His painting of Siân Owen aged 71 at Capel Salem, a Baptist chapel at Pentre Gwynfryn in the north of Wales, is a national icon, much as Constable’s “The Hay Wain” is in England. The Royal Mint already produces Welsh-specific coins, so my proposals raise no major issue of principle—indeed, the Minister referred to the Royal Mint earlier in the debate.
A national poll by ITV Cymru/Wales found that more than 80%—indeed, it was 82.6% when I looked at the website today—of the Welsh public supported these calls. If we are unsuccessful in the Division, I hope that the UK Government will support Plaid Cymru in putting right this historical anomaly and bring forward their own proposals.

Hywel Williams: I have a Welsh pound coin with me, and it reeks of nationalist propaganda because around the edge it states “Pleidiol wyf i’m gwlad”, which means “True am I to my country”. I certainly agree with that, but it is issued by the Royal Mint.

Jonathan Edwards: My hon. Friend makes my point entirely. There is no issue of principle at stake; this is about finding the mechanism for delivery.
This issue has received considerable media coverage in Wales. Considering that we are only two weeks from the Welsh general election, I suggest to Treasury Ministers that the election prospects of their candidates in Wales may be damaged if they choose to ignore the strong views of the people of Wales on this matter.

Richard Burgon: I support amendments 4 and 5, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). In Committee, the Minister highlighted the presence of the Royal Mint in Cardiff and its role in the production of our coins. In reflecting on that, it is worth noting that the pound coin reflects each nation, with the royal arms, the three lions and the oak tree for England; the thistle and the lion rampant for Scotland; the flax plant and the Celtic cross for Northern Ireland; and, of course, both the dragon and the leek for Wales. Since 2010, we have had pound coins celebrating the capital cities in the floral emblems of each nation of the United Kingdom. It therefore seems anomalous that Scotland, with its own Parliament, has its own banknotes and that Northern Ireland, with its own Assembly, has its own unique banknotes, yet that Wales, with its own flourishing Assembly, has no national identifier for circulating currency.

Susan Elan Jones: If the amendments pass tonight and Wales is allowed to produce its own banknotes, I very much hope that some north Walians will be featured on them. Does my hon. Friend agree that such notes also represent a fine opportunity to showcase the great figures of Welsh literature and music?

Richard Burgon: My hon. Friend makes a fantastic suggestion, and I shall return in a few seconds to some Welsh figures from music, if not literature. It is important that all aspects of Welsh culture are represented when, as I hope, the Welsh people are able to choose who should feature on their banknotes and coins. A celebration of iconic Welsh scenes and places would also be appropriate. For example, there could be representations of the steel industry of Port Talbot, or the mining communities of the valleys—even perhaps the Tower colliery which, as those who know about the history of mining in Wales are aware, was run as a co-operative when miners used their redundancy payments to turn it into a successful venture. Such imagery would be well supported across the nation. Shirley Bassey and Nye Bevan, the father and founder of our NHS, have been suggested. It would be great to see Nye Bevan on a Welsh banknote. It might be a bit over the top to feature his famous quotes likening Tories to certain members of the animal kingdom, but that would be a matter for the Welsh people to decide.
My own personal suggestion, for what it is worth, is that given that it is now 30 years since the formation of that great Welsh rock band, the Manic Street Preachers, I would love to see them celebrated on a new banknote, although they might have ideological objections to doing so. It is also the 20th anniversary of “Everything Must Go”— I am talking not about the Chancellor’s policy on RBS shares, but the album of that name by the Manic Street Preachers. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made it clear, however, it  would be for the people of Wales, not those from Yorkshire or anywhere else, to decide who or what should appear on Welsh banknotes. In that spirit, I hope that the Conservative Government do not commit the cardinal error of snubbing the Welsh people’s desire for their own banknotes.

Jonathan Edwards: And there is an election in two weeks’ time.

Richard Burgon: I had not thought of that point.
The lack of any Welsh-themed banknotes is an error that the amendments are designed to put right. I would appreciate the Government agreeing to the proposal and investigating the possible costs and timeframes for such a change. Labour Members wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support these amendments.

Harriett Baldwin: Anyone would think that a Welsh general election was going on this afternoon, would they not? I am glad that we have had time to debate this issue this afternoon. I can remember the shock in Worcestershire when Elgar, whose birthplace is in my West Worcestershire constituency, was taken off the £20 note. It was certainly a very live political issue.
I know that we all have an emotional attachment to our banknotes, and I therefore sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) to make the case that he has made so ably this afternoon, along with other Members, for banknotes to have some Welsh characteristics. We shall not be able to agree to the amendment today, for reasons that I shall explain, but I hope that what I shall say about our new banknotes will give some cheer to our Welsh colleagues.
First, let me give the House a history lesson. The UK is a rare example in the world of a country that allows certain commercial banks to issue banknotes. As the hon. Gentleman said, since the 1840s, when the House passed the Bank Charter Act 1844, no new bank has been allowed to issue commercial banknotes in the United Kingdom. Let me put that in context. The 1840s happened a long time ago: it was the time of both Elizabeth Fry, whom we celebrate on the Bank of England £5 note, and Charles Darwin, whom we find on the £10 note. Since then, many of the banks that were originally authorised to issue banknotes have lost or surrendered their rights. The last private note issuer in Wales was the North and South Wales Bank, which lost its note-issuing rights in 1908 when it was taken over by the Midland Bank, now rebranded as HSBC. Today, only seven commercial note issuers remain: three banks in Scotland, and four in Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to preserving the long-standing tradition of commercial issuance in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as is clear from the amendments made in clause 36.

Hywel Williams: Does the Minister agree with my earlier point that there is a commercial advantage to be gained from issuing one’s own notes? Why can that advantage not be extended to bank operations in Wales?

Harriett Baldwin: That is the very point that I was about to make. The amendment seeks to confer the right to issue commercial banknotes in Wales—a clear   commercial advantage—on just one bank, Lloyds Banking Group. That appears to be based on a link to a right to issuance that was broken more than 100 years ago. Today, the Government—the taxpayer—owns just under 10% of Lloyds Banking Group. Part of Lloyds Banking Group already has a commercial banknotes issuance operation, which may be why the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr chose to focus on a single bank in his amendment. That is due to the acquisition of the Bank of Scotland operation, which is authorised to issue banknotes in Scotland. However, extending the privilege and the commercial advantage of issuing banknotes in Wales to just one bank would raise competition and commercial issues for others.
I liked the wide range of suggestions about who should be represented on Welsh banknotes, and, as  I said earlier, the coins in our pockets are minted  in Wales. I appreciate that the motive behind the amendment—the symbolic issue about which the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly—is to create a symbol, rather than to deal with a pressing economic or practical need for different banknotes.
The Bank of England has already announced that future banknotes, starting with the polymer £5 note which will be issued in September 2016, will include symbols representing all four home nations. For Wales, the imagery will be taken from the Royal Coat of Arms and the Royal Badge of Wales. The Bank recently announced that the design for the £5 note would be revealed on 2 June 2016.
I am very glad that we have had a chance to discuss the merits of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot support it. However, I welcome the opportunity to convey the message that an important symbol of Wales will appear on our new banknotes.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 301.
Question accordingly negatived.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 1 February).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Schedule 2 - Appointments relating to Part 1

Amendment made: 3, page 49, line 12, at end insert—
‘( ) In paragraph 14 for “submit a monthly” substitute “, at least 8 times in each calendar year, submit a”” —(Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment changes the frequency with which the Monetary Policy Committee is required to report to the court of directors from once a month to at least 8 times a year. This is because Clause 8(4) replaces a requirement for monthly Committee meetings with one for meetings at least 8 times a year.
Third Reading

Harriett Baldwin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a pleasure to take this legislation through this House. There has been a good level of interest from Members from all parts of the House, and a wealth of suggestions and recommendations have been made, which is a testament to how important the issues in this Bill are. Indeed, some of the suggestions have made their way into the Bill.
The Bill will: make the Bank of England more transparent and accountable to Parliament and the public; further strengthen standards in the financial services sector; and strengthen protections for consumers, especially when accessing the new pensions freedoms. Building on the fundamental reforms to the regulatory architecture introduced by the Financial Services Act 2012, the Bill delivers a set of important evolutionary changes to the Bank. It ends the subsidiary status of the Prudential Regulation Authority and creates a new Prudential Regulation Committee, on the same footing as the Monetary Policy Committee and Financial Policy Committee. It makes the oversight functions the responsibility of the whole court, ensuring that every member of the court, executive and non-executive, can be held to account for the use of these functions. It also enhances the accountability of the Bank to Parliament by making the whole Bank subject, for the first time, to National Audit Office oversight. If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me correct something I said in error earlier, when I confused NAO with FOI—freedom of information. Of course, FOI has applied to the Bank of England for some time; this Bill brings in the NAO oversight.
The Bill also implements the remaining recommendation of the Warsh review, updating requirements for the timing of MPC publications and meetings. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) said on Second Reading, this Bill
“brings the Bank of England more up to date as an institution, and in doing so it should greatly improve the scope for making it accountable to Parliament and the public”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 667.]
During the passage of this Bill we have rightly devoted considerable time to the question of the appropriate role for Parliament. The Treasury Committee plays a crucial role in providing effective scrutiny of the FCA’s chief executive, and the agreement that we have announced today reinforces that.
The second aspect of the Bill is that it strengthens conduct in the financial sector by extending the senior managers and certification regime to all firms covered by the discredited authorised persons regime that we inherited. We all agree on the vital importance of high standards of conduct in the UK financial services industry. This Government have already taken the initiative in this area; we took a key step by bringing in the regime for the banking sector in March this year. The expansion of this new regime to all authorised persons will enhance personal responsibility for senior managers across the industry and raise standards of conduct more broadly.
Thirdly, the Bill introduces support for consumers accessing the new pension freedoms. To support consumers who, from April 2017, will be able to sell their annuity income stream in the secondary market for annuities, the Bill will extend the scope of the Pension Wise guidance service to cover these consumers, and introduce a requirement that, in effect, ensures that consumers with a high-value annuity receive appropriate financial advice before making the decision to sell their annuity income stream. These measures will help make consumers better informed and less vulnerable to mis-selling and scams.
In order to ensure fairness for people seeking to access their pensions early, the Bill will also give the FCA a new duty to cap early exit charges that act as a  deterrent. This will provide real protection to consumers in contract-based pension schemes who are looking to make use of the freedoms.
The Bill also supports the Government’s consumer protection objectives by giving the Treasury a new power to provide financial assistance to illegal money-lending teams tasked with tackling loan sharks. Today, we have also added the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
In closing, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debates, both by speaking and by tabling amendments. In particular, I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their efforts and for the time spent going through the Bill clause by clause. The hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) provided challenging discussion throughout the passage of the Bill. The hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) gave close scrutiny to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester made valuable contributions that have been most helpful and insightful, particularly on Treasury Committee matters.
I also thank the Treasury Whips, my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who have provided me with much support both during and outside Bill debates. The Chairs of the Public Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have handled our scrutiny well.
I thank my Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who took on the important and thankless task of sitting behind me during our sittings and ensuring that I got the right briefing, for supporting me generally throughout this process.
Lord Bridges and Lord Ashton have done a fantastic job in taking the Bill through the other place, and I trust that they will continue to do so when the Lords consider our amendments.
Finally, I give thanks to the organisations that have assisted us in developing the Bill—the Bank of England, the National Audit Office and the Financial Conduct Authority. I must also give sincere thanks to Treasury officials, lawyers and parliamentary counsel, who spent many hours in the box, drafting amendments and briefings for these debates.
We have had useful and wide-ranging debates, and our discussions with Members in all parts of the House were constructive, even when we did not agree and had to settle matters with a vote. We have shown an understanding of each other’s position and improved the legislation as a result. The Bill will now go back to the other place, where their lordships will consider the useful changes that we have made to the Bill. I hope that they will welcome the legislation in its current form.
In conclusion, this Bill makes changes to strengthen the governance and accountability of the Bank of England. It will contribute to the Government’s commitment to strengthen standards across the financial services industry and ensure that consumers are well protected. I commend its Third Reading to the House.

Richard Burgon: It is my pleasure to speak for the Opposition on Third Reading of the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill. The Chair of the Treasury Committee very kindly referred to the good humour and good nature I showed in one of my speeches. I am afraid that, if he were here now, he would be disappointed with the speech that I am about to make. People could be forgiven for thinking that I am returning to what some call my po-faced modus operandi.
The role of Government in legislating for financial stability and in ensuring that the Bank of England acts in the interests of the wider economy is to get the balance of regulation right. Righting the wrongs of the 2008 bankers’ crisis is an important task for any responsible Government—a task that Governments around the world have focused on fulfilling in the past decade. The task has been being attempted since the bankers’ crisis of 2008, and today the bankers’ Chancellor is threatening to set it back.
The Bill has seen a number of changes since it first appeared in the other place, some of them for the better, but the precipitate changes that the Government are making to financial services regulation through their new settlement with the financial sector, including through measures in this Bill, suggest that they have failed to learn the lessons of the 2008 bankers’ crisis.
The Bill is a missed opportunity. The measures we have challenged on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report include the proposed abolition of the Bank’s oversight committee, the proposed veto on the National Audit Office’s powers of investigation, the proposed downgrading of the power of the Prudential Regulation Authority to that of a committee of the Bank, and the proposed reversal of the presumption of senior managers’ responsibility for misconduct cases. However, we also welcome a number of measures, including the Lords-stage concessions on the powers of oversight for the Bank’s non-executive directors, the reversal of the veto on the NAO’s powers of investigation, and the measures announced on funding for illegal money-lending teams in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
We are disappointed that other proposals have not been accepted by the Government. The leak of the Panama papers in the past fortnight has reawakened public concern about our financial system. There has been publication of thousands of documents detailing the systematic use of tax havens for the registration of secretive trusts and shell companies that are serviced by UK banks and that hold trillions of pounds out of reach of HMRC—a state of affairs that rightly outrages people across the UK and the globe. That is why earlier today we offered the Government an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to delivering the necessary tax transparency measures through our new clause 14.
That new clause, if the Government had supported it, would have instituted a new principle for the FCA: that of combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements, including by establishing a register of beneficial owners of trusts serviced by UK banks. Of course, that in itself is not sufficient, and Labour has set out its tax transparency enforcement plan. Earlier today, our new clause raised the vital issue of the UK banks’ involvement in the Panama papers, which the FCA has now asked them to report on.
The Government have set out initial plans but, with respect, they have not in our view grasped the bull by the horns. They have been dragged there by campaigners, charities and commentators who have rightly urged action on anti-abuse rules and country-by-country reporting. However, it is on the regulation of banks’ activity here in the UK, which has been such a dominant issue in recent years, that the Government have rolled back, watering down their proposals—or, should I say, U-turning on them.
Under the current presumption of responsibility that applies to senior managers, to avoid being found guilty of misconduct in an area for which they are responsible, they will have to show that they took reasonable steps to prevent that contravention. The Bill removes that onus on top bankers, an onus that is entirely reasonable, entirely proportionate and, as very bitter experience tells the British people, entirely necessary. Misconduct and misdemeanours in financial services are sadly not merely a tale from our history. In 2015, for example, the FCA had to fine firms more than £900 million. There was also the LIBOR scandal, foreign exchange fines and the mis-selling of PPI to the value of up to £33 billion, and the presumption of responsibility was so reasonable and so necessary that the policy was introduced with cross-party support. That should not be forgotten.
It is remarkable that only days after the leak of the Panama papers and the pressure on the Prime Minister to defend his creative financial arrangements, the Government can come to this House and defend their decision to reverse regulation that they chose to bring in back in 2013, following the comprehensive work of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my colleague Lord McFall, and others on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. This measure, which the Government are yet to implement, has been rolled back by the bankers’ Chancellor under pressure from those who would have been scrutinised. This change of policy did not take place in isolation; as I say, it was part of the Chancellor’s new settlement with the financial sector.
Another idea that we supported today, alongside our Treasury Committee colleagues, was strengthening the role of the Treasury Committee in the appointment of the chief executive of the FCA. It is the Treasury’s influence over the FCA and financial regulation that has been the subject of so much debate and concern in the past year; there has been debate and concern about the removal of Martin Wheatley and the scrapping of the FCA review of banking culture. More widely, as part of the post-crash debate, there have been concerns about whether bank capitalisation and leverage would be at sufficient levels and whether a suitably strong ring-fence would be implemented.
Added to this toxic cocktail of the bankers’ Chancellor’s own stirring is his unhealthy obsession with flogging off the Government’s Royal Bank of Scotland shares at a huge cost to the public purse. I have previously asked the Minister whether the Government will establish a floor price for the sale of RBS shares, as they have with Lloyds shares—or do they accept that the Chancellor got it wrong when he said that his loss leader last year would lead to better sales?
There is also the issue of pension master trusts. In Committee, the Minister told my colleague the shadow Financial Secretary that the Government would bring  forward legislation, but the Minister of State for Pensions has since told the Work and Pensions Committee:
“I have been pressing for a Pensions Bill but so far we don’t have one”,
even though the Government could not protect savers without one. Will the Minister say when the Government will take action?
This Bill is a missed opportunity to demonstrate how the Bank of England could carry out its work in the most efficient way possible, with transparency and accountability in its decision making, serving the interests of the people who have sent us here to represent them, and a missed opportunity to demonstrate that senior managers in the financial sector could continue to do their jobs while being effectively and appropriately regulated. These are more missed opportunities from the missed-target Chancellor.
The context of the Bill is vital to understanding our concerns, and the concerns and demands of the wider public. We are eight years on from the economic crisis—the bankers’ crisis, which brought the financial services sector and our country to their knees. The sector was rescued by the decisive action of the then Prime Minister.

Ronnie Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take over and run these dodgy banks that have been in trouble all these years?

Richard Burgon: The Prime Minister of the day did step in and take appropriate action. The important thing is that the lessons of the financial crisis and the banking crisis are learned. I believe that the Opposition have learned those lessons, but those on the Government Benches have not.
Do the Chancellor and the Government still not understand the widespread anger out there? Do they not recognise the public’s deep distaste for the ever-expanding horror story of bailed-out bankers not being brought to book? The Panama papers shone a light on the squalid practice of the super-rich squirreling away money offshore that Britain needs for our schools and hospitals, and to bring down the UK debt that has rocketed on the Chancellor’s watch. As I said on Second Reading, all that is taking place while there are cuts to pay, pensions, welfare, councils and services.
The public are right to remember that because of the behaviour of some top bankers, people whom this House is meant to represent lost their homes and their jobs. We should never forget that it was the bankers’ crisis that caused the deficit that this Government have relied on as their justification for their political choice to cut our public services, cut funding to our local authorities, cut the incomes of working people and cut support for the most vulnerable people in our communities. The global financial crash caused the huge increase in the deficit and stalled the economy. It also gave the Government the opportunity to carry out their long-harboured and decades-old ideological desire to cut public services and wither away the state.
We need a healthy and effective banking sector, but one that is appropriately regulated, serves the interests of the whole economy, does not hurt ordinary people or small and medium-sized businesses and delivers the vital investment our country needs for long-term growth. The Conservative Government’s climbdown on the  presumption of responsibility, which they previously supported, will hinder, not help, the fulfilment of those ambitions.
Personal responsibility is vital for the operation of our regulatory systems. The Chancellor’s policy U-turn reduces precisely the personal responsibility that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended in its 500-page report. Scrapping a key measures before it has even had a chance to be tested makes no sense—unless, of course, the Chancellor is just following bankers’ orders. The startling and precipitous scrapping of a widely welcomed measure shows that there is a very real risk of failing to learn the lessons of the bankers’ crisis, and that is why we will oppose the Bill today. I urge all hon. Members to do the same.

George Kerevan: We, too, will oppose the Bill on Third Reading. During Treasury questions today, the Chancellor said—I wrote the phrase down, because I was rather taken with it—that he was quite certain that we now have “better and tougher regulation of the financial system.” That is a good test, and it is a good test for this Bill. Do we have tougher regulation? As the law stands this evening, if a senior named manager in a major financial institution discovers that there has been major corruption, wrongdoing and regulatory failure at their bank on their watch, they are culpable unless they can prove to the FCA that they took reasonable steps to stop that happening. As we speak, they would be responsible, and that has been the case for a month and a half.
If we pass the Bill tonight, the situation will change. That manager will no longer be personally responsible. They will be able to argue, “Actually, I ticked all the boxes, signed all the forms, went to all the group therapy sessions with those on my trading floor and told them all to be good boys and girls, but do you know what? They weren’t, and they hid it from me.” And so we will go through the whole cycle again. The law as it stands, as passed by this Government and this Chancellor, makes each individual senior named manager responsible, like the captain of a ship or ferry; if something goes wrong, they are responsible and they cannot claim otherwise. If we pass the Bill, far from toughening the law, we will weaken it.
The only explanation we have heard from the Government is that it is a bit more complicated now because the Bill widens to tens of thousands the number of people who will be designated as responsible people when it comes to identifying who is in charge when something goes wrong. I understand that, but it is perfectly possible, as we tried in Committee, to ring-fence and say that the very senior people in the major banks—the systemically dangerous banks—should be held personally responsible, unless they can prove that they took proper steps. But no, the Government are using the widening of the designated persons regime to weaken and water down the current legislation. That tells me that they are not really serious about being tougher; they are more concerned with getting by.
There was an interesting debate in Committee about transfer vehicles. Those are a bit technical, but they are to do with how the insurance market reinsures itself to  spread risk. There are clauses in the Bill—this is a good thing to put into it—that give the Treasury powers to regulate the use of transfer vehicles in the reinsurance market in a tougher fashion, to use the Chancellor’s key word.
I do not have time to go into detail about what is happening, but insurers can offset some of their risk in the reinsurance market, and they usually do that by selling some of it to specialist wholesale houses, which buy into the risk, but whose capital covers the risk if something goes wrong. Now, the insurance market is instead moving towards reinsuring through specialist vehicles of the kind that got us into trouble in the mortgage market in the lead-up to 2007.
When the issue was discussed in Committee, it was interesting that Ministers argued that we needed to put in place a regulatory framework that made it easier to shift the burden in the reinsurance market away from wholesalers that are capitalised and towards special vehicles using all the financial markets’ tricks of the trade, which led to the disaster in 2007. That said to me that, deep down in the Bill, the Government are up to their old tricks—they want to deregulate and to have less tough regulation, rather than more regulation. On those grounds, the Bill fails the Chancellor’s test, and we should vote against it.
There are good things in the Bill. In particular, we can pride ourselves on the fact that, through the Committee stage and leading up to Report stage today, the Government have been persuaded—I use that word in inverted commas—to take the Treasury Committee’s advice and to set a precedent, in that the FCA’s chief executive will in future be subject, de facto, to having their appointment approved by the Committee and, therefore, by this House rather than the Executive.
That does two things. First, it makes the FCA more accountable, because it is accountable to the House rather than the Executive. Secondly, it protects the FCA from interference by the Executive. That is a good precedent. If it is extended, we will be able to ensure that all the key regulatory bodies and their senior staff are approved by the House and, in particular, that the Governor of the Bank of England is subject to scrutiny and approval by the House, rather than simply appointed by the Executive. That is important because of the large powers that have been transferred to the Bank of England since the crisis of 2007.
However, there are still loose ends, and so I come to the word “better” in the Chancellor’s little homily. Have things got better? They have got a little better, given the ability of the House to protect the FCA and to have a role in appointing its head, and we can take that further into other regulatory bodies. However, there are loose ends at the FCA. Much of the Bill and much of the debate has been about the FCA. In the last instance, the FCA is the consumer’s champion: it regulates how the banks sell. Many of the problems we have had in the last 10 years have been about mis-selling by the banks. Every Member in the House will know we have a number of legacy organisations and legacy campaigns because we have still not put right the mis-selling that has taken place across a range of banks and products since the turn of the millennium.
The FCA is important, and protecting it is important, because, in the last instance, it is the consumer’s champion. A few weeks ago I went to FCA headquarters and had a  meeting with Mr John Griffith-Jones, who is the chairman of the FCA. I put it to him, “You are the consumer champion,” but he demurred. He does not feel that the FCA is the consumer champion. He thinks that that would go too far and that it would be partisan and take up the consumer’s choice. At present, the FCA is still too much the creature of the Treasury. If we want a tougher and better regulatory regime, we have to make the FCA truly independent.
The FCA is getting a new chief executive, but I am not going to offer platitudes and pleasantries. When the new chief executive starts, I think that the chairman of the FCA should consider his position, because I think it also needs a new chairman. We are only starting on the road of making sure that our regulatory bodies are fit for purpose; we have not got there yet.
Finally, many people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are disappointed that the Government stood on ceremony and decided not to widen the remit of the membership of the core bodies of the Bank of England, starting with its court, to allow proper representation of all of the regions and nations, including the north of England. Most people in this country, and certainly those in the Celtic regions, are long of the view that the Bank of England, the banks and the key regulatory authorities are far too focused on the square mile of the City of London and its needs. We will never have a tougher, better regulatory system unless we widen the remit until the whole of the UK—the individual nations and the regions of England—is represented. Until we do that, the Bank of England is still suspect. That has not been delivered, so there is still a suspicion across the UK that the banking regulatory system operates ultimately in the interests of the bankers, rather than the people. Until that changes, we will not have a better or tougher regulatory system; we will simply have the same old regulatory system dressed up under a different name, and the same old banking crisis will be around the corner yet again.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 237.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Modern Slavery

That the draft Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Code of Practice) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.—(Charlie Elphicke.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Green belt land between Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay

Gavin Williamson: I would like to present a petition signed by the 4,962 people who have joined me in our campaign against building on green-belt land between Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay.
The petition reads:
The petition of residents of Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay in the South Staffordshire constituency, and others,
Declares that the current proposals to build 136 houses on Landywood Lane, Great Wyrley will lead to the erosion of the distinct identity of our individual villages and could cause substantial environmental damage and further notes that residents have already successfully fought these proposals at local council level in 2013.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage South Staffordshire District Council to reject these proposals, and if the proposals go to the Planning Inspectorate, to also encourage them to reject the proposals so that the green belt can be conserved for future generations.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001684]

UK Citizens Returning From Fighting Daesh

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate, and to so many right hon. and hon. Members for expressing an interest in it. I am particularly honoured that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) will respond to the debate for the Government. I know that the nation sleeps more soundly and sweetly in the knowledge that he is our Minister for Security.
This question is not a new one. We have grappled with how to view and respond to our fellow citizens who go abroad to fight in foreign wars. They did so not for money, as mercenaries, but because they believed that was the right thing to do, and they joined the side of the conflict that at least ostensibly—and certainly, for those unversed in the complexities of an individual conflict—held widespread public support. That side was viewed by many, perhaps at times the majority, as the right side, or as, in one way or another, Britain’s ally. Some 50,000 English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish fought in the American civil war, and several thousand fought in the Spanish civil war, as was memorialised by George Orwell. More recently, dozens of British volunteers joined Croatian units during the Yugoslav wars between 1991 and 1995.
After the experience of the American civil war, Parliament passed the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, which prevents Britons from enlisting in a foreign army that is at war with a state currently at peace with the United Kingdom. However, that Act has never been properly enforced. It was, and it remains to this day, extremely difficult to monitor and to prosecute such an offence. Those returning from the Spanish civil war frequently expected to be given a hero’s welcome; in fact, they were invariably treated with suspicion by the police. They faced workplace discrimination, and many were even prevented from enlisting during the second world war.
Today, many—perhaps hundreds; I do not have an authoritative estimate, but perhaps the Minister will give us one in a moment—British citizens have travelled to northern Iraq, and from there into Syria. They have trained with Kurdish forces and militias and, ultimately, fought on the frontline against Daesh, in some cases in the fiercest fighting that there has been in this conflict, at Sinjar and Kobane.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate about a very interesting issue. Many people who went to the middle east to fight on the allied side—the side that the Government are supporting—checked with their own police forces and Government officials to let them know that they were going, and they were allowed to go, but when they returned, some were arrested, questioned and detained. Is there not something wrong when someone checks to see whether it is all right to go but then is arrested on their return? Why should that be?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Gentleman gets to the point of the debate and I will return to that issue in a  moment. The Government and the country need a clear and consistent policy. If we let individuals go, why should we arrest them for terrorism on their return?

Rehman Chishti: I applaud my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The opposite happened in my constituency. Anthony Harrison, a constituent, went to Iraq and fought with the Kurdish YPG forces. When he returned to Heathrow, he expected to be stopped, but was not. He then went back to Gillingham and self-referred to the police. The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. We should be checking those individuals who have gone out and come back, otherwise there is a real risk to our national security.

Robert Jenrick: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Whichever side of the argument we take—whether we are supporters of these individuals or have reservations—their stories suggest that there is no clear policy. Those stories do not give us great confidence in our border controls, as different individuals have clearly been treated in different ways.
A growing number of individuals have been profiled in the media. Some have even been on more than one tour, as it were. I have been in contact with 20 families, some of whom I will refer to this evening, including that of one of my own constituents, Aiden Aslin. Two Britons and an Irishman were arrested this weekend crossing back from Syria into northern Iraq, so this remains a topical issue. At least one British citizen, a former marine, Konstandinos Erik Scurfield from Barnsley, has been killed in action. The Foreign Office says that owing to the difficulties and the lack of consular services in the area, it is difficult to estimate whether more British citizens have been killed in action and what may have become of their bodies.
Behind every one of those individuals is a family. I have been in regular contact with my constituent Aiden’s mother, Angela, and his grandmother, Pamela, throughout his 10 months abroad. I cannot overstate their concern and anguish. Their initial thought was that one day they would turn on the television and see their son and grandson in an orange jacket. In their case, at least, there is also acceptance that their son and grandson took this extraordinary decision freely, in sound mind and good faith, because he could not continue to watch the atrocities on the television every night and turn a blind eye. I would not dare to generalise about the motives of all who have gone out there, but I have now met several, and they are brave and good people who deserve our respect and fair treatment under the law.

Anne McLaughlin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to seek a bit of advice about the highly unusual case of a UK citizen injured fighting the forces of Daesh whom I met in a refugee camp in France. He is leading a pretty miserable existence there because he refuses to abandon his wife and baby boy who had to flee Kurdistan, but are not entitled to seek asylum in the UK. The family do not meet the minimum income requirements for spouse visas, partly because of his injuries. How can we help this courageous UK citizen who fought our common enemy, Daesh, and get him and his family out of their miserable existence in the refugee camp in Europe and back here where he belongs?

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point; perhaps the Minister will respond to it later in the debate. I am pleased that other hon. Members have come across individuals who are in the same circumstances as people I have met.
These individuals are entering an exceptionally dangerous situation, and many are not at all prepared or suitable for these conflict zones. Some of the militias with which they wittingly or unwittingly become involved divide opinion sharply, and it is difficult for the layperson to navigate their record and legal status in the United Kingdom. Some of the groups have been accused of war crimes or association with terrorism. The diplomatic situation is complex, and things are becoming increasingly hostile towards those who are enlisting in Iraq and Turkey. It is exceptionally difficult to understand what citizens have done while in the field and who they have associated with, or to predict with complete confidence how they will behave on their return.
I start with the premise that although we acknowledge people’s bravery and seek fair and appropriate treatment, we should as far as possible discourage and inhibit British citizens from going out in the first place, particularly if we plan to arrest some of them under the Terrorism Act 2000 when they return. Several militias operate in the region, but the principal group recruiting British citizens that I have come across is the YPG, or its foreign fighters organisation, the Lions of Rojava, which has a Facebook account and is easily contactable online.
My constituent, who had no prior knowledge of the region, was able to carry out a Google search, to make contact and to organise his travel at low cost and with great ease. As far as I know—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—the Home Office and internet providers have made no effort to close down such sites as they might for those that encourage the recruitment of British citizens to fight on the other side. Many of those recruited are making rational choices, and it is not my intention to imply otherwise or discredit them, but there is clear evidence that some are far less equipped than others to make these decisions, such as a 19-year-old man who previously worked as a florist in Manchester and had never left the United Kingdom in his life, a young man with Asperger’s, and a British citizen who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had previously tried to take his own life three times. Journalists in the field to whom I have spoken have reported being contacted on numerous occasions by former servicemen who are asking for ways to return to Iraq to finish the job and to support the Iraqi and Syrian people, particularly in the name of their fallen comrades who gave their lives in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating this excellent debate, and he is right that we must try to prevent people from going out there in the first place. What more does he think that internet companies should do to bring down these sites as soon as possible? At the moment, the referral process takes too long.

Robert Jenrick: I completely concur with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. It is important that Facebook and others take down not only sites that are actively  recruiting British citizens to fight for IS, but sites that might be preying on naive and vulnerable Britons who, in their eyes, have decided to do the right thing, but are none the less getting themselves into grave danger.
Some of those individuals, particularly ex-servicemen and women, would be advised not to go to the conflict zone. Few questions are asked by the recruiters and no military experience is required. Health is never checked, and many if not most people arrive at airports such as Sulaymaniyah completely in the dark about what they should expect. They could be kidnapped and held to ransom—who knows?

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend says that health is never checked when people go out, but given the trauma that people may have suffered on the battlefield, their state of mind needs to be checked when they come back if we are to consider security, because such people may inadvertently get drawn into other criminal activity.

Robert Jenrick: The short answer is that very little support is offered to returning individuals. Indeed, my research suggests that the vast majority of people are not even questioned by the police or security services on their return.
Many people going out have little knowledge of the principal militias such as the YPG. My purpose tonight is not to besmirch the YPG, but to point out that it divides opinion and that many if not most Britons who go out have no real knowledge of that group or the accusations against it. Amnesty International has accused the YPG of war crimes.
The Turkish Government believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is an offshoot of the PKK, which is of course a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK and the USA. Recent reports suggest that some foreign fighters have left the YPG in the field because of its views and joined other even more obscure militias such as the so-called “self-sacrifice” group, which operates in the Nineveh region.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on securing this debate. Having said that, I have been listening to what he has been saying and I wonder how he would regard ex-British servicemen who fight alongside the Kurds? Is it not an interesting question to ask what happens to them when they return?
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, showing the complexity of the situation. As I understand it, the Kurdish army, the peshmerga, has said that, as a result of direct representations by the US Government, it is no longer recruiting foreign fighters, but militias are different and continue to recruit foreign volunteers. Some of these groups use a language of martyrdom that is not altogether dissimilar from that of the people they are fighting against, which certainly makes me extremely uncomfortable.
The position of British citizens in the field has become even more complex recently because it appears that Turkey has applied pressure on Iraq to take action against the YPG and foreign fighters because of its links to the PKK and the Kurds. The two Britons and an Irishman arrested over the weekend were detained by the Iraqi Government due to “visa irregularities”, which seems a fairly spurious reason for arrest, given that there is no working Iraqi-Syrian border. It none the less suggests that, given our limited consular services in northern Iraq, British citizens are getting themselves into a complex and dangerous situation. British citizens should be discouraged from going out. The sites should be taken down and the Government should, behind the scenes, persuade the Kurdish authorities to keep British citizens out of the conflict. The peshmerga are no longer accepting foreign volunteers, as I say, but the militias certainly are.
Why are individuals not being prevented from travelling when they openly inform officers of their intentions at the airport, as my constituent did, when these immigration and security officials should surely know that these individuals are likely to be arrested on their return? If British citizens are to be arrested under the Terrorism Act, why are we waving them through immigration and on to their planes? That is perverse and unjust to those individuals.
Let me turn briefly to how we treat these individuals on their return. Of the 20 I have spoken with or their families, two were arrested under the Terrorism Act; four were questioned, but not arrested; 14 came and went at will, unquestioned, three of whom have been on a second or third tour of duty overseas. That does not give me a great deal of confidence in our border controls.

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend talks about people being stopped and questioned by the police. I have a letter here from the Minister in the other place who is responsible for tackling extremism, which states that the stopping and questioning of these individuals is an operational matter for the police, but surely we need guidance for each case from the Government rather than having issue after issue being looked at by the police.

Robert Jenrick: I could not agree more.
I do not know whether this is a representative sample, so perhaps the Minister will tell us in his remarks how many British citizens have been arrested in these circumstances, but it is clear that there is not a consistent approach. Much, as my hon. Friend has just said, is left to individual police forces. My own police force in Nottinghamshire arrested my constituent on his plane and took him for brief questioning, yet he has awaited news of whether he is to be charged for the past 12 weeks. The outcome has now been postponed once again. I am told that the Crown Prosecution Service has not been given the file or been asked for its advice.
Do police forces know how to handle this situation? Some treat these individuals and their families in exactly the same way and in the same circumstances as they would for those fighting for Daesh, which is particularly rough on the families and loved ones, whose homes are  searched and computers taken while neighbours watch on through twitching curtains. Others may well chose not to get involved as some individuals have been in the press, but are never troubled by the police.
Clearly, individuals need to be questioned; we need to understand what they have done. I can appreciate, as the Minister may argue, that a single mistake or an individual wrongly assumed to be fighting on the other side who then returns home and commits a terrorist act, is a risk that we cannot bear. However, I suggest that we should exercise caution before arresting individuals, because that will remain on their records for the rest of their lives. If we do arrest them, it should be done consistently, and police forces should be equipped with guidance so that people like my constituent are not left in limbo for months and months while they decide what to do.

Kevin Foster: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Jenrick: I will give way one last time.

Kevin Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate that has proved quite interesting to me. He has described the complexity of a situation in which different militia groups—different forces—are fighting Daesh. Does he agree that guidance is needed because the task of any immigration or police officer who is presented with a case of this kind is to investigate crime rather than looking into international affairs?

Robert Jenrick: That is absolutely true. This is an unenviable task for anyone who is involved in such investigations.
I do not pretend to have the answers, but let me draw the attention of the House and the Minister to an issue that I think needs careful thought. Given the existence of social media and cheap international flights, it has never been easier for individuals to make contact, to be recruited, and to travel to conflict zones. It might be thought that in this modern age when we are all mollycoddled, people would not dream of doing something of this kind, but people are doing it, and it is becoming easier and easier to do.

Alex Chalk: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Government and law enforcement agencies to send the clear, consistent and credible message that those who decide to go abroad and risk their lives run a very real risk of prosecution when they return? Would that not constitute a powerful disincentive?

Robert Jenrick: I could not agree more.
Most of these individuals—certainly most of those whom I have met—are doing this for what they believe to be good reasons. Most are braver men and women than you or I. However, doing this carries great risks, beyond the risk of being killed, captured or ransomed: the risks involved in being caught fighting with a group that is viewed by some as a terrorist organisation. Even if it is not, people will still be arrested, and that will remain on their records for the rest of their lives.
The Government need a considered and consistent policy, which they do not appear to have today. They need a policy that discourages British citizens from taking such risks, which ensures that, whenever possible,  they are advised of their likely legal status on their return, and which, above all, treats these brave men fairly and appropriately when they do come home.

John Hayes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on securing an interesting and informative debate on a topic that has been unfairly overlooked during our discussions about the conflict in Syria and Iraq. As you might expect, Mr Speaker, I have a prepared speech, and I shall refer to it sporadically, but I want to tailor my remarks to the issues that have been raised in the debate. I sense the shivers that are going down the spines of Home Office officials as I utter those words.
My hon. Friend made an emphatic case for why we should broadcast clearly and powerfully that travelling abroad in uncertain circumstances such as those that he has described is extremely dangerous. There are three reasons for that. First, the cause that people go to support is often not what it is purported to be in the propaganda that has encouraged them to do so. Secondly, as my hon. Friend suggested, those people may well not return. They may be placed in extremely jeopardous situations, even if they are going abroad to offer help. They may not know that they are going to fight—to engage in conflict—but they will nevertheless be placing themselves in extreme danger, almost regardless of their original purpose. Thirdly, on their return they may well face prosecution and will certainly face arrest. Extra-territorial jurisdiction applies in many of the places to which they might travel—particularly, as in this case, Syria. It is entirely possible that they have committed crimes abroad that are subject to that jurisdiction, and can be tried in a court here in the United Kingdom. That is another fact that is not made known to them when they are recruited. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, first and foremost, we should send out the extremely clear message that if people travel to a dangerous place, they will put themselves in all kinds of jeopardy.

Jim Cunningham: There is a history of people volunteering to go abroad in this way—for example, during the Spanish civil war and other wars since then. Do the Home Office and the Cabinet Office view such people technically as mercenaries?

John Hayes: As I have implied, these matters have to be gauged on a case-by-case basis, because people travel abroad for humanitarian reasons and all kinds of other reasons. In the first tranche of people travelling to Syria, many went with good intentions and to do good work. They went to help. The pattern of travel to Syria has changed over time, but I would certainly not want to make any general assumptions about why an individual went or what they did when they got there. However, it is almost universally true to say that they place themselves at considerable risk. If people want to offer humanitarian help, it is much better to do that in a more organised way than in a dilettante fashion. People can contribute in all sorts of ways to the humanitarian effort in which the Government are playing a powerful part without putting themselves at risk. There are things that they can do to help.
Part of the reason behind the advice that was offered by my hon. Friend in his impressive speech, and which I have amplified, is that some of the organisations that people might join—ostensibly for the good and noble purposes that he described—might themselves be proscribed. Some of the organisations fighting Daesh are themselves proscribed and might be engaged in activities that we neither endorse nor support. The picture is often more complicated than is portrayed when people are recruited.
Many of those people are recruited through the internet. It will not have missed your consideration, Mr Speaker—little does—that people communicate in all kinds of modern technological ways these days. Much of the propaganda that is now emanating from Daesh uses the most modern methods of communication. We often think of Daesh as brutally archaic, which is understandable given its means and its methods. Indeed, it is often suggested that it is an organisation from times past. However, its technological methodology is extremely up to date. It takes advantage of every kind of social media and it uses the internet regularly in a well-organised and sophisticated way. That is precisely why its message is seductive to its adherents and apologists here in the United Kingdom.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is absolutely right to suggest that we are dealing with a very sophisticated enemy. May I take him back to the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about border checks? We still do not have 100% border checks, because our passports are not viewed by immigration officers on departure. They are looked at, together with our boarding cards, by the travel agents, but we are not checked on departure. The hon. Gentleman is calling for better checks at the border, with our passports being looked at by immigration officers and swiped before departure. That does not happen at the moment.

John Hayes: The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee takes a keen interest in all such matters. What I will say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark is that it seems that if people have notified the local police that they may go, which is what he said, and then no more has been done for the reasons that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) suggested, that does not seem satisfactory. It certainly seems reasonable that if people have notified the police that they are going to travel—although it is of course for the police to make a case-by-case judgment on an operational basis—we need at least to be confident that the police have the right guidance on what is appropriate. I am certainly happy to take that suggestion back to the Home Office and to see what more can be done, if anything, to ensure that the advice to different police forces around the country is consistent. As I say, these are, in the end, operational matters, and this has to be gauged on a case-by-case basis, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newark makes an important point none the less.

Sylvia Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous in taking interventions. Following his comment about briefing police forces around the country, I urge him to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is included. People can leave the UK on British passports, go out to help in Syria, become radicalised and then come back, perfectly  lawfully, to Dublin or Shannon airports. The border between the Republic of Ireland and South Armagh is entirely porous, so British passport holders can re-enter the UK through Northern Ireland without any border checks.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable case. There is a robust system in place for missing persons to be identified, for example, by the Turkish police on the Syrian border. We spend a great deal of time considering the issue of people returning from Syria, because some of them will subsequently be subjects of interest to our intelligence services and to law enforcement. However, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark was making was that if someone has said to the police, “I’m going,” do different forces apply the same policy consistently? It is a reasonable point, which is why I have committed to considering it in more detail and to looking at the guidance.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes: I am anxious to make progress, but I will briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Jim Shannon: This House took a majority decision to support bombing attacks in Syria and Iraq. Those who watched those debates would assume that the bombing would be in support of the 70,000 allied forces and supporters who were trying to fight Daesh on the ground. That was the whole purpose of the House’s decision. Anyone watching that debate who wanted to support the factions fighting Daesh would feel, when they spoke to the police, that this House was already fighting a war, and that they were doing nothing wrong. Does the Minister understand that that is the issue put forward by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? There are two different groups: those who are fighting Daesh, and those who support Daesh.

John Hayes: I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that someone might think that they are going out for what might be the perfectly noble cause of fighting our common enemy, but there is always a great deal of uncertainty about what happens when they get there. Such people are by their nature often quite ignorant of what they will encounter and may become linked to, tied to, or involved in all kinds of organisations and groups, some of which are proscribed in this country and engage in all kinds of other activities as well as the battle against Daesh. This is a complicated issue and should not be presented as anything else, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s sympathy.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes: I will give way one more time, and then I really must make progress.

Rehman Chishti: The Minister will agree that both categories of individuals—those who go to fight Daesh and those who support Daesh—are of concern. Around 800 individuals are fighting with Daesh. Do the Government or the Minister have an estimate of the number of individuals out there fighting against Daesh? Both groups should be on our intelligence services’ radar.

John Hayes: We know roughly the number of people who have travelled to Syria, some of whom initially went for humanitarian reasons. Many have returned, but some have been killed. As both my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, all those who go also face the risk of being captured and used as hostages. The strong advice is, “Don’t go, because you don’t know what you are going to encounter. And you certainly don’t know what the consequences may be.” That is precisely the point my hon. Friend the Member for Newark made in his opening remarks, and it is an important signal to send out from this place.
I would not want to suggest that the Government are inactive in this respect, so let me deal with what we are doing. The work we are doing on providing humanitarian aid is well documented. We have pledged more than £2.3 billion in vital life-saving assistance to Syria, and this is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. We remain one of the largest donors to the Syrian crisis response internationally. Of course it is important also to emphasise that those engaged in terrorism blight lives, provide bogus legitimacy to the worst extremes of human behaviour and tear communities apart. This activity cannot ever be justified, and it will never be justified by this Government, wherever it takes place or whoever commits it. I also understand the desire to confront our enemies, but the struggle for what is right is not, and cannot be, left to individuals; it can be devised and delivered only through the proper exercise of Government authority.
The second point I wish to make is that we are, of course, part of a military response to the threat posed by Daesh; the UK is making a strong military contribution. RAF Typhoon, Tornado and Reaper aircraft have flown more than 2,000 combat missions, and about 1,000 UK personnel are supporting their operation in the wider region. Our aircraft also provide effective close air support to Iraqi and Kurdish forces taking the fight to Daesh on the ground, with recent successes coming in Ramadi and Sinjar. It is through the global coalition, to which we are making such a significant contribution, that we will defeat Daesh. Although it is understandable that individuals should want to add to that, their effort is better expended in supporting what we are trying to do as a nation to get this right, both militarily and in humanitarian terms.
This is also about challenging the propaganda that I have mentioned, as has the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. Challenging that, in communities up and down our nation, is a job for all of us. If people want to fight Daesh, they can do that on the streets of our capital city, London, and in cities and towns across this kingdom. All of us have a job to do in countering that poisonous narrative, which is delivered partly, but not only, through the internet. That is why the Government have invested so much in the Prevent programme and in our Channel programme, which deals specifically with people at risk of radicalisation.
We introduced a Prevent duty for a range of public bodies, including schools, prisons, local authorities and health services. This communal task of challenging the narrative is ongoing. It is highly dynamic, for the very reason that the threat we face is dynamic, and that requires us to redouble our efforts. I say to individuals who want to take on Daesh that there is a job to do in  all those ways. For example, we take 1,800 pieces of terrorist propaganda down from the internet not every year or every month, but every week. That task is vital, as is supporting those community organisations and others that are putting forward the counter-narrative. These are important pieces of work, because the effect on individuals, particularly young people, who are corrupted by that poisonous narrative could not be more devastating.
Of course young people are targeted, because they are particularly vulnerable. They are susceptible to the kind of propaganda that I have described. It is important to know that last year alone, we referred 2,000 young people to our Channel programme, because they were vulnerable to that kind of radicalisation. In some cases, no further work was needed, but in others, intervention by social services was required. More than 200 such young people received support through that Channel programme.
At the end of last year, I saw at first hand, in Portsmouth, Hackney and elsewhere, the work that was done by our Prevent co-ordinators. I have met many of those who are on the frontline of this battle, and that is the frontline on which I want people to fight. I am talking about working in this country, taking on those  who wish to corrupt our young people. This is no less than a safeguarding issue. The methods used by those who want to radicalise young people are not dissimilar to those of other kinds of exploitation. There is often a grooming process, which may take place face to face or online. It is often about picking on those young people who are particularly disadvantaged in some way. It is certainly about turning them from the cause of virtue to the cause of wickedness.
There should be no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has done a service to this House by drawing our attention to the matters that we have debated briefly tonight. I end with this thought, which I hope he will broadcast to the people of Newark and elsewhere. If anyone should be in any doubt, let it be dispelled tonight: this Government and this Minister can outmatch our enemies in respect of our certainty, our determination and our commitment to winning this battle for the very heart and soul of all we are as a people.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.